Linkiesta: Do you see the very public differences between the U.S. and Israel governments vis-à-vis Iran as genuine, as deceptive, or as a mixture of the two?
Daniel Pipes: From the outside, I cannot assess what tricks these governments might play, but U.S.-Israeli differences are real. In brief, Donald Trump focuses on the nuclear issue while Benjamin Netanyahu worries about the Islamic Republic of Iran itself. The former seeks a deal; the latter seeks regime overthrow. This contrast mirrors many other issues where Trump seeks a limited modification (think Gaza, Ukraine, and Venezuela), while those with deep stakes seek fundamental change. Put differently, Trump's transactional outlook differs from anyone with a philosophical or ideological outlook.
Linkiesta: Moscow and Beijing have barely helped Tehran in its hour of need; might they be sacrificing Iran in exchange for U.S. concessions on Ukraine and Taiwan?
DP: I see no indication that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have received concessions for staying away from Iran. Each has his reasons to do so. Putin has a far more urgent problem as his war in Ukraine goes ever worse. Xi has much larger issues with the United States. So, the two states have likely abandoned Iran without gaining anything in return.
Linkiesta: Does military confrontation with Iran serve Trump as a diversion from domestic issues such as the Epstein Files, the Supreme Court ruling against him on tariffs, and the difficult state of the American economy?
DP: U.S. presidents have a long history of finding foreign affairs more congenial than domestic ones, in large part because they have much more authority there. Plus, meeting foreign leaders bestows more glamor than union bosses or local politicians. That said, I do not see any reason to believe that Trump is using the confrontation with Iran as wag-the-dog moment to distract American voters from their bread-and-butter issues.
Linkiesta: What is the probability of Tehran, feeling trapped, striking American bases and Israel first?
DP: Given Iran's severe military advantage versus each of the United States and Israel, plus a huge American force surrounding the country and the failure of prior Iranian attacks on Israel, its leaders are extremely unlikely to initiate a war.
Linkiesta: In the event of war, would the Iranian regime compromise on nuclear power and missile capabilities to stay in power; or would it resist concessions, even if this risks its overthrowal?
DP: I imagine a very intense debate on this question taking place within the ranks of the Islamic Republic. The choice is a bitter one: Remain on the offense, no matter what, even if this leads to destruction? Or betray Khomeini's legacy to survive? If pressed to predict, I pick survival as the more likely choice.
Linkiesta: How important is the elimination of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Middle East and to the global Islamist movement?
DP: For nearly a half-century, revolutionary Iran has disrupted the Middle East and beyond, so its overthrow will have a profound effect on the region, calming it. Perhaps even more importantly, Ayatollah Khomeini's seizure of power in 1979 turned Islamism from an opposition force into a ruling power, giving the ideology both power and greater appeal. Conversely, were the Islamic Republic to fall, that would end an era, both weakening Islamism and reducing its appeal.
Linkiesta: Would the Iranian regime's collapse accelerate the collapse of its agents and allies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and beyond?
DP: Collapse would certainly weaken them, but these groups do not entirely depend on Tehran and so would likely survive for some time.
Linkiesta: What steps do you recommend to the U.S. government against the Iranian regime?
DP: My iron law: Never start a full-scale war unless prepared to deploy the infantry. In other words, a democratic leader must be confident of his voters' backing before taking on a military goal such as regime change. Yes, air power alone can achieve limited and specific goals, such as in Twelve-Day War and the Venezuela operation, but not more. Do not attack Iran with the goal of regime change unless ready to put troops on the ground.
Linkiesta: What role should Europe play in the current Middle East crisis?
DP: The horror of Putin's war on Ukraine has had the silver lining of waking Europeans up to the reality of geopolitics. I hope this new consciousness will lead them to support all U.S. and Israeli steps against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
