The third Gulf war: one week on - The Intelligence from The Economist Recap

Podcast: The Intelligence from The Economist

Published: 2026-03-06

Duration: 30 min

Summary

The episode examines the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, focusing on the implications of military actions by the U.S. and Israel against Iran, and the resilience of the Iranian regime amid these hostilities.

What Happened

In this episode, host Rosie Bloor leads a discussion on the escalating conflict in the Middle East, specifically the airstrikes against Iran by the U.S. and Israel. With Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announcing a 'dramatic surge' in firepower, the podcast highlights the continued military pressure on Iran, while Donald Trump calls for regime change in the country. The conversation features insights from The Economist's Defence Editor Shashank Joshi and other editors, who reflect on the geopolitical ramifications of the current situation.

The editors discuss the complexities of U.S. involvement and the multiple reasons behind the conflict, including concerns over Iran's nuclear and missile programs. They note that the effectiveness of U.S. and Israeli military operations is juxtaposed against a lack of clarity regarding the ultimate objectives of this war. Furthermore, they delve into the resilience of the Iranian regime, emphasizing that despite significant leadership losses, such as the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the regime has deep structural support and has not shown signs of widespread collapse.

Key Insights

• The U.S. and Israel are leveraging significant military power against Iran without clear war objectives.
• Trump's calls for Iranian regime change reflect a historical reckoning and a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy.
• The Iranian regime, despite leadership losses, remains resilient due to its established structures and committed forces.
• The conflict raises questions about the effectiveness of military intervention in achieving political change in Iran.

Key Questions Answered

What are the implications of U.S. military strategy in the Gulf?

The episode discusses the significant firepower displayed by U.S. and Israeli forces, highlighting their operational efficiency. However, there is a contrasting vagueness in the U.S. regarding the war's purpose, with Ed Carr noting that having multiple reasons for war can complicate the sacrifice required from both sides. The need for a defined objective is emphasized as critical for any military engagement.

How has Trump's rhetoric influenced the conflict in the Middle East?

Trump's insistence on a role in determining Iran's leadership and his calls for the regime to lay down its weapons indicate a historic reckoning with past grievances, such as the hostage crisis. His influence suggests a potential shift in U.S. policy towards more aggressive interventions, aiming for regime change rather than merely addressing immediate threats.

What is the current state of the Iranian regime following recent airstrikes?

Despite suffering leadership losses, including the death of Ali Khamenei, the Iranian regime shows resilience. Josie DeLap notes that the regime had prepared for such eventualities and relies on a wide network of committed forces, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This infrastructure prevents the regime from collapsing under pressure, as seen in previous uprisings.

What are the potential consequences of involving Kurdish fighters in the conflict?

The discussion brings attention to Trump's endorsement of Kurdish fighters attacking Iran, which could escalate the conflict significantly. Ed Carr warns that this involvement is a dangerous move that could further complicate the already volatile situation in the region, potentially leading to unintended consequences.

Should the U.S. continue its military operations in Iran?

The podcast highlights a debate among The Economist's editors about whether the U.S. should persist with its bombing campaigns. They conclude that there is a need to finish degrading Iran's missile capabilities to prevent future threats, suggesting that military intervention might be warranted despite the strategic errors that led to this point.