Podcast Summary: “Who Is Winning the War in Iran?”

Podcast: The Daily (The New York Times)
Episode Date: March 19, 2026
Host: Natalie Kitroeff (with guest Eric Schmidt, NYT reporter)
Length: ~40 min (non-ad content summarized)

Overview of the Episode

Nearly three weeks into the war in Iran, the U.S. and Israel have delivered heavy blows to the Iranian regime—decimating much of its missile capacity, killing major leaders, and attacking strategic sites. And yet, Iran remains defiant, wielding asymmetric tools—especially the disruption of the vital Strait of Hormuz—to inflict global economic havoc. Host Natalie Kitroeff and NYT national security correspondent Eric Schmidt dissect the shifting battlefield, the resilience of the regime, and the deeply problematic choices now facing President Trump and his advisors.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. State of the War: U.S.-Israeli Military Successes vs. Iranian Resilience

• Military progress: American commanders see themselves as ahead of schedule, having delivered profound strikes:
  • Over 7,800 Iranian military targets hit; 120+ naval vessels destroyed (US), including minelayers.
  • Israeli Air Force focused on eliminating Iranian leadership—killing or striking the security chief, war commanders, Basij militia leader, and intelligence chief.
  • “In less than two weeks, we've rendered the Iranian navy combat ineffective…” – Eric Schmidt [02:16]
• Civilian and military casualties:
  • Estimated 2,100 deaths, with 1,300+ Iranian civilian deaths, and some in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar.
  • 13 U.S. troops killed (6 in a refueling accident). [05:42–06:35]
  • US repositioned most troops to avoid heavy casualties.

2. Limits of Military Success: Political Goals Remain Unmet

• Regime resilience: Despite leader losses and material destruction, Iran continues to mount fierce resistance, now operating more as a “guerrilla-style asymmetric campaign.”
  • “The regime has been quite resilient.” – Eric Schmidt [03:55]
• Regime has shifted tactics: Focused its dwindling resources on highly selected targets—especially aiming for economic and psychological warfare over direct military confrontation.
  • “They're being very selective in their targeting ... economic warfare is probably their biggest tool.” – Eric Schmidt [08:46]

3. Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s Economic Weapon

• Iran’s leverage on global energy:
  • Using mines, missiles, and swarms of small speedboats to disrupt shipping.
  • “They basically brought international commerce to a trickle.” – Eric Schmidt [09:15]
  • Nearly 20 tankers attacked, creating real deterrence for other shippers and insurance carriers.
  • Even with most Iranian naval assets destroyed, the threat of a single successful mine or attack keeps the global flow of oil and goods crippled.
  • "There are multiple means that Iran has to threaten shipping, which has really had a very severe effect on traffic moving in and out of that strategic waterway.” – Eric Schmidt [11:44]
• Mosaic/Multi-district defense: Iranian strategy assigns regional commanders autonomy, allowing continued attacks regardless of central command or leadership losses. [12:50]
• Asymmetric advantage persists:
  • “We are seeing the most powerful and sophisticated military in the world being stymied essentially by this totally decentralized strategy…” – Host [13:22]
  • Iran’s control over the Strait is seen as their “ace in the hole,” exerting acute economic pressure on the U.S. and global community.

4. Was this Foreseeable? Gaps in U.S. Planning

• Warnings and miscalculations: Military advisers briefed Trump beforehand about the Strait risks; the problem is not new (citing Iran-Iraq War). Nonetheless, the rapidity and intensity of Iran’s response, especially to regional neighbors, was underestimated.
  • “This was very much predictable ... the way in which the Iranian regime reached for this option quickly ... took some American officials off guard.” – Eric Schmidt [16:02]
• Shortcomings: U.S. mine-clearing assets were unready or abroad; little allied or international preparation for shipping escort contingencies.

5. President Trump’s Dilemma: A Menu of Bad-to-Worse Options

• Main Options:
  • A. Naval convoys/escort operations:
    • U.S. Navy (potentially with allies) conducting escorts through Hormuz, requiring destroyers, air support, constant vigilance—an extremely risky and resource-heavy operation. [20:38–22:39]
  • B. Seizing Kharge Island (Iran’s oil hub):
    • Amphibious U.S. operation to seize and hold Iran’s primary oil export node, to pressure Iran economically; would be arduous, obvious (no strategic surprise), and could backfire if the oil infrastructure is destroyed or Iran remains defiant. [22:52–25:57]
  • C. Targeting Iran’s nuclear material at Isfahan:
    • Continued bombing to “entomb” uranium or high-risk commando raids to extract/neutralize nuclear materials—exceedingly dangerous, toxic, and potentially escalatory. [27:22–29:59]
  • D. Declaring victory and withdrawing:
    • Trump could claim objectives met, despite regime survival and ongoing risk. No guarantee Iran (or Israel) would stop fighting. [31:10–32:13]
• None offer a clean “win”: Every course carries profound risks—military exposure, damage to global commerce, failure to achieve long-term political goals, or intensification of asymmetric/terrorist responses from Iran.

6. Regime Change? Unlikely

• Despite initial rhetoric about toppling Iran’s government, substantial regime change is now seen as highly improbable by intelligence analysts.
  • “There isn't really a good chance of regime change right now. The best you're going to get is a badly weakened state ... very unlikely at this point that you're going to have regime change of the kind that the President talked about on the first night of the war…” – Eric Schmidt [33:51]

7. Israel-U.S. Divergence

• While the U.S. considers an “off-ramp,” Israel’s goals may differ, complicating the potential for coordinating an end to the conflict.
  • “The President and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ... are not necessarily on the same page in terms of when to quit this fight.” – Eric Schmidt [32:13]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On U.S. military progress:

  • “In less than two weeks, we've rendered the Iranian navy combat ineffective and continue to attack naval vessels. They've hit over 120 Iranian naval vessels...” – Eric Schmidt [02:16]

• On the resiliency of Iran:

  • “Despite the fact that they've lost these top leaders, they have factored that into their planning.” – Eric Schmidt [04:07]

• On economic warfare:

  • “What they've been able to do is ... basically brought international commerce to a trickle. And that's the main concern right now of the administration because it's sending global shockwaves in terms of the economic impact this is already having.” – Eric Schmidt [09:15]

• On asymmetric warfare:

  • “Here we are seeing the most powerful and sophisticated military in the world being stymied essentially by this totally decentralized strategy carried out by a seriously weakened country ...” – Host [13:22]

• On policy options:

  • “The options are not good. They basically range from bad to really bad to worse for the President right now.” – Eric Schmidt [18:52]

• On regime change:

  • “There isn't really a good chance of regime change right now. The best you're going to get is a badly weakened state ...” – Eric Schmidt [33:51]

Important Timestamps & Segments

• Orientation & Military Progress: [00:33–06:35]
• Limits of Military Victory / Iranian Resilience: [06:35–09:13]
• Economic Warfare & The Strait of Hormuz: [09:13–13:58]
• Assessment of U.S. Planning & Political Fallout: [13:58–18:52]
• Presidential Options: Bad to Worse: [20:22–31:10]
• Regime Change Question: [33:11–34:54]
• Summary Thoughts / Conclusion: [35:23–36:06]

Conclusion

This episode vividly details how, despite overwhelming military might and dramatic tactical gains, the U.S. and Israel are mired in a conflict where Iran’s decentralized, resourceful tactics—especially through economic disruption—continue to wield disproportionate power. The options available to the U.S. administration are fraught with risk, cost, and uncertainty. Goals and endgames remain elusive, with the possibility of outright regime change all but gone. As the episode closes, listeners are left with a sobering question: What does victory mean in a war without clear endpoints or achievable goals—and is “winning” even possible under these circumstances?