Jeffrey Goldberg: The question looming in the country today is simple.

What does victory in Iran look like?

Asking the president isn't much use.

He's provided strikingly different answers based seemingly on his mood.

What is definitively true is that Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz, and it is unclear how President Trump plans to open up this crucial chokepoint.

Tonight, we'll ask another question as well.

Is President Trump's war of choice becoming a war of necessity?

Next.

Good evening and welcome to Washington Week.

There are at least two Iran wars taking place right now.

There's the war being waged by the U.S.

military and the Israelis, and in this war, Iranian targets are being methodically destroyed, according to carefully designed plans.

The other war is playing out inside the brain of Donald Trump.

We don't know the goals of this war or the metrics of success, or even whether Trump is assimilating information the way his military commanders are.

Trump has been notably inconsistent in telling us what he believes the purpose and the goals of this war are.

On any given day, he'll threaten to destroy all of Iran's energy infrastructure, and then the next day, he'll tell us that negotiations are taking place to bring about the war's quick end.

He'll tell us that the goal is the overthrow of the Iranian regime, and then he'll say the goal is the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war.

And then he'll let us know that opening the Strait of Hormuz doesn't actually matter.

All wars are covered in a fog of misinterpretation and misinformation and uncertainty; this one even more.

I'm going to try to riddle all of this out with my guests tonight: Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, The New York Times; Susan Glasser, Staff Writer, The New Yorker; David Ignatius, Columnist, The Washington Post; and Missy Ryan, Staff Writer and Pentagon Correspondent, The Atlantic.

Thank you all for joining me this week's edition of what is happening in the Middle East.

Apparently that's the new theme of this show.

David, is the U.S.

winning the war?

Donald Trump just said a little while ago today, he said it in the past tense.

He said, we beat the hell out of Iran, so as if he's moving on to Cuba.

David Ignatius, Columnist, The Washington Post: When you asked the question though, I could hear the quotation marks around the word, winning.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Yes.

David Ignatius: Because what does winning mean day by day?

As you said in the introduction, the U.S.

and Israel are destroying targets.

They must be running out of some targets to hit.

So, in a tactical sense, there's no question that overwhelming military power's being brought to bear and Iran's being degraded.

But today, we had a day when the U.S.

financial markets plunged dramatically.

We had a day when ten U.S.

service people were injured in Saudi Arabia as Iran struck back.

So, this war continues.

And the more I watch this process of a weak enemy being pounded and pounded, I'm reminded of the Gaza War.

Israel, for two years, hit Gaza.

It invaded, it did what we haven't done in Iran, and yet today, with the war over, Hamas still controls most of the Palestinians in Gaza.

Even with all that power, Israel wasn't able to win.

And I think that's what we're all worrying about is, as Donald Trump says, we won, it's over, it's over, it's over, we think about how far we are from a kind of decisive victory that would really end this in a way that everybody could be confident it's over.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Is the only decisive victory the overthrow of the regime by the people of Iran, most of whom hate the regime?

David Ignatius: So, the decisive change that I think many people want, certainly people in the region, is for Iran to be a different kind of country, to no longer threaten its neighbors, for the regime no longer to threaten its people, for Iran to be, as Henry Kissinger famously said, a nation, not a cause.

And that will require a different regime.

And I think, you know, a hard part about this war is so many of us would like to see that change, but you can't do it through military power.

That's what we're learning.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Susan, what's your definition of winning?

Susan Glasser, Staff Writer, The New Yorker: Well, you know, to the point, we've been told so many different things.

I think it was the former, Trump's first term defense secretary, Jim Mattis, who famously broke with him over Trump's treatment of American allies.

He made the point this week, first of all, that the U.S.

is unfortunately fighting without its allies for now and further alienating them.

But I think most importantly, you can strike 10,000, 15,000 targets, but if you don't know towards what end, then you can't really define winning.

It was the Pakistani foreign minister who was asked the same question the other day, and he said, right now, the only strategic goal I can identify for the conflict is reopening the Strait of Hormuz that was closed as a result of the war.

And it's hard to imagine the U.S.

leaving the war unfinished in that way.

And I think that's where so many people I've started to hear the Q word thrown around, and that's not a good word, quagmire, when it comes to how the U.S.

is going to even plausibly extricate.

Trump may have moved on, but I don't see any realistic way where things stand as they do right now, that it actually can be ended.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I thought the Q word was Quidditch, but that was just me.

Peter, to be fair to the Trump administration, they have degraded Iran's ability to fire missiles at its neighbors.

They're still firing missiles, but they destroyed some, so we'll talk to Missy, the Pentagon expert, about just how far they've gone down this road.

They've degraded Iran's ability to be a threat across the region.

That's more than just the Strait of Hormuz.

Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, The New York Times: Yes.

No, look, the sum total of the last couple years is that Iran is a far different country than it was before October 7th, 2023, right?

Its ability to project force through proxies in the region has been degraded by the Israelis, particularly in Lebanon and Gaza.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Syria regime is gone.

Peter Baker: Syria regime is gone, right?

The last war in June took out a lot of their air defenses, which is why we're having so much more success this time because we don't feel the threat in going in to take out these nuclear sites and other things.

So, yes, it's not the same country it once was.

It is absolutely, certainly degraded in that sense.

The ballistic missile stockpile has been, if not wiped out, certainly down significantly.

But the question then becomes, if you don't have a new regime, if you don't have a change in the country, as Dave was talking about, does this mean then we have to do it again in five years or ten years or one year, who knows?

Because they have made clear that they're not giving up and they're not going to simply roll over and say, okay, Donald, you're right, we're going to be your vassal state now and we're going to do everything you want us to do.

Jeffrey Goldberg: But if you are saying that to Marco Rubio, he might say in return, okay, so we'll do it in five years.

So, we have five years where Iran is not a threat.

Peter Baker: Yes.

And if you're living in the region and you've been threatened by Iran all this time, that might not feel like the worst bargain in the world, but it's not a permanent solution.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Peter Baker: Right?

And I think one thing we've seen is that they continue to be a menace in the Strait of Hormuz to the world economy in a way they had not been prior to this war starting out, as Susan made the point.

And in that sense, they have a vote on when this war ends too.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Peter Baker: Right?

Trump can say, tomorrow I'm done.

I've gotten everything I wanted to do.

But if the Strait of Hormuz is closed or still in their control in a long-term sense, then they've won something as well.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Missy, from the Pentagon perspective, from the actual war that's going on, how far along the pathway laid out by the Pentagon military planners is the U.S.?

Missy Ryan, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: So, at the beginning of the conflict, we were told that they had about three or four weeks expected campaign in terms of the target set that they had developed with the Israeli military.

We're now almost at four weeks.

The combined U.S.

and Israeli strikes have hit more than 15,000 targets.

As Peter said, they've significantly degraded their ballistic missile, their defense industrial, and their naval capability.

And now what is happening is the U.S.

is getting in position the forces that it could require to try to clear the Strait of Hormuz militarily.

That's - at this time we know about - Jeffrey Goldberg: And that's the insertion of Marines.

Missy Ryan: Marines.

And they have - it's about 8,000 Marines and paratroopers.

They've got two Marine Expeditionary Units heading to the Middle East.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Missy Ryan: You know, the most likely scenario is that they are holding those in reserve, potentially to clear the Strait of Hormuz, but they could be used in other ways as well.

But the issue here is that there's an asymmetry.

Even though Iran is weakened, its military capability has been degraded, there's an asymmetry in its ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, keep it closed with, you know, a small number of mines, a small number of missile strikes on commercial tankers.

And there's also an asymmetry in its ability to threaten Gulf countries with the kind of drones that even though, you know, the U.S.

military has been hitting some of its manufacturing sites, it's easy for them to, you know, hide them in a garage, put them in the back of a pickup truck and launch those and really continue to wreak havoc, the kind of havoc that's going to have an impact on oil markets, on financial markets here in the United States as well.

Jeffrey Goldberg: If one drone out of every hundred, I mean, a drone packed with explosives gets through, that's a 1 percent victory.

Missy Ryan: I mean, exactly.

And that, you know, I don't think we should underestimate Trump's ability to at least try to declare victory just out of the blue because he thinks that that suits his interest, but, you know, there really is the reality of continued strife that could bring down the kind of economic reality that I think is more resonant for him.

Jeffrey Goldberg: David, if they don't open the Strait of Hormuz and make it safe for commercial shipping, that's obviously not a victory.

David Ignatius, Columnist, The Washington Post: That is what's called defeat.

That is a failure to achieve the fundamental war that the president has or should have.

Iran has taken the Strait of Hormuz hostage.

And so when there's a hostage-taking, you have a choice.

You either try to free the hostage by force-Missy was talking about sending in Marines and other troops to seize territory-or you free the hostage by negotiation or some wily combination of the two.

And I think that's basically the choice that Trump has.

If he tries to walk away from this, having left global commerce in a very precarious situation, global markets really now being affected by the closure of the strait, which walks away, we've achieved our goals, that's it, it's up to you, fellows, I think the world will just be irate and I don't think you can get away.

I heard today from an Arab who's been involved in parts of these discussions an idea for some kind of international process that, in effect, oversees the Strait of Hormuz.

That is like what the U.N.

did in the negotiations that opened the Black Sea to commerce again in the Ukraine war.

I mean, the Black Sea was a no-go zone.

The U.N.

negotiated a process.

It got buy-in from everybody.

And it's not inconceivable that something like that could be done for the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran is demanding that it charge tolls.

Well, that's not going to work.

But it's conceivable that you could have some kind of international regime that's a way out that actually would get buy-in from just about everybody.

Jeffrey Goldberg: How hard is it to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily?

David Ignatius: Military?

So, I think landing troops who are going to be there as targets indefinitely is a terrible idea.

The problem, I mean, I've been up there and seen it, as others around the table may have, it is really such a tiny area.

It's so easy to mine.

It's so easy.

You could float a tanker out at midnight with no transponders and sink it, and you block a big part of that passageway.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Peter, David wrote this week, Trump is convincing as a risk taker but not a suicidal one.

He has an instinct for self-preservation amid the chaos he inflicts.

Oil prices spiking, markets-Nasdaq in correction territory.

Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, The New York Times: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: You covered this man for a long time.

Is he just going to throw his hands up?

Peter Baker: Well, I think one of the things that's been surprising is his willingness to absorb that pain for as long as he has, because he's a famously impatient man, right?

But one of the things we've seen also has affected his policies in the past have been pressure points on economics.

When the bond markets have reacted badly to some of his tariff decisions, he's been willing to reverse course or switch gears, and he hasn't yet so far on this.

But I think his calculation is that once it's over, and it'll be over in two weeks, three weeks, however many weeks you want to say, it'll all be back to normal and everything will be fine.

At least that's what he's telling himself, right, that gas prices will come back down, the markets will recover by the time the midterms come along, whether that's lost or not for the Republicans, we can be already, but it'll all be back to normal.

People won't mind.

But the problem is that if there's a big disparity between saying we've won, which is what he says, we've won already-past tense, we've won-and sending 8,000, 10,000, 20,000 troops to the ground, and even if it's a fake-out, even if it's a strategic ambiguity in order to leverage negotiations, what he's at least putting on the table is a much more extended and extensive involvement on a long-term basis in the region, which is exactly what Americans thought they were voting against when they voted for him.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Right.

Whatever he does, he is not going to be doing it with many European allies.

The Europeans, of course, as well as Asian countries, more dependent on the oil and gas that flows through.

Susan, you wrote this week, America's friends in Europe ought to take note of what the president said at 6:16 a.m.

on Thursday when he started his day by denouncing not only the ayatollahs of the Islamic Republic, but the nations of NATO that have so far refused to join the U.S.

in its war on Iran.

This is in all caps: The USA needs nothing from NATO, but never forget this very important point in time.

I'm not even 100 percent sure I understand what he means by "never forget this important point in time."

But he's trolling NATO precisely when he could use some help.

It seems like he has more anger at U.S.

allies sometimes than he has at the anti-American ayatollahs who run Iran.

Susan Glasser, Staff Writer, The New Yorker: For sure, or, for example, the leaders of Russia, you know, who have now become beneficiaries of this war.

And in fact, in many ways, Vladimir Putin is getting-I think it was a $38 billion windfall-and that's even if the war stops in April, which there's no guarantee that it will, because we've allowed, lifted temporarily sanctions on some of its oil in order to ease the pressure in the markets created by Trump's war.

Donald Trump-there's a through line here-you know it well, you know, he has consistently denigrated America's allies and its alliances going back to the very beginning of his time in politics.

And my theory of the case is: pay attention to what Donald Trump is fulminating about late at night and early in the morning.

That is as close as the world has ever come to a direct pipeline into the id of an American president.

Donald Trump has it out for NATO.

He has it out for America's European allies.

He continued after that posting to complain about it in a cabinet meeting in increasingly strident terms, again on Friday.

We'll see if he follows through.

But I think what you are seeing over the last six months, especially after Donald Trump's threat to hold out the possibility of using military force against our NATO ally, Denmark, to seize its territory in Greenland, that was a real breaking point for many of America's partners.

It's remarkable that our partners, both in Europe and Asia, by the way, who were also asked in Japan and South Korea to participate in this conflict, to help open the strait, they all said a very loud no.

This is your war, Donald.

And I think David's point about, you know, if we can continue in a sort of limbo here in the Strait of Hormuz, Donald Trump declares victory, walks away, and it's still not safe for those tankers to go through, the resentment, which was already building up, is going to be enormous.

And I think it's very hard to see a scenario here where this doesn't represent a big blow to American international power and standing in many ways.

Jeffrey Goldberg: No.

If the strait is not open, the U.S.

will look like the thing that Donald Trump professes to hate more than anything-a loser.

But, Missy, just to make a point of clarification here, the U.S.

does not need NATO or Japan or South Korea to open up the Strait of Hormuz.

It would just be harder and it would require more American resources.

Missy Ryan, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: No, the U.S.

military doesn't need the French military or the Danish military.

What the United States would do, if it took the decision to do so, it would first-the biggest barrier to trying to clear the strait is making sure that the countermine ships are not hit by drones, they're not hit by missiles.

That is why they're not in the region.

That's why they haven't started this work yet.

So, what they would need to do is feel confident enough that the anti-ship missiles, that the drones aren't going to come out and hit these ships.

Then the United States would get combat air patrols around the Littoral Combat Ships, which are the countermine ships.

They would have destroyers go in.

And technically, it's something that can be done.

There are always mines that are missed.

We saw this in the Gulf War in 1991.

We saw this in the tanker wars in the 1980s, where American ships were hit despite the belief that they already had been cleared.

So, it can be done.

I think, for Trump, it's more of another grievance against these countries where he feels like he's doing the heavy lifting.

We don't need this oil.

And I think that he wants the moral support.

He wants to be head of a coalition, just like Joe Biden was in Ukraine.

And it's more about that than the military capability.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I have a large question for the panel, which is prompted by a moment that I want you to watch, courtesy of the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson.

Let's watch this for a minute.

Rep.

Mike Johnson (R-LA): And so tonight we have created a new award.

We are going to do something we've never done before.

We're going to honor him with a new award that we'll present annually from this point forward.

But he is the suitable and fitting recipient of the first-ever America First Award.

We can think of no better title for what that is.

That's this beautiful golden statue here, appropriate for the new golden era in America.

Jeffrey Goldberg: Peter, I mean, I'll ask this of everyone.

It's a real challenge for the United States, not only on this issue-the war currently-but others, that the president is unusually susceptible to flattery and unusually resistant to criticism or self-reflection.

This was extraordinary.

Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent, The New York Times: Yes.

Jeffrey Goldberg: It's one of the many extraordinary things that happen all the time now.

But talk about a president with that kind of personality in a situation in which he has to be assimilating vast quantities of intelligence, including intelligence you might not want to hear.

Peter Baker: Right, yes.

No, flattery is the way you get to him, and information is not.

And look at the other one that happened this week, by the way, Mike Johnson giving him this made-up award.

But the other thing that's going on this week is the Treasury Department-Donald Trump's Treasury Department-has decided to put Donald Trump's signature on the dollar bill and every other dollar bill.

No president has ever had their signature on the currency before.

But it's one more way of stamping his identity on not just the buildings he built as a developer, but on American institutions.

His name is now in the Kennedy Center.

His name is now on the Institute of Peace.

He wants his name on Dulles Airport, on Union Station, on Penn Station.

He wants his name on programs for tax cuts and prescription medication.

And it's all about his ego and narcissism.

It's not subtle, and everybody plays that.

So, if you are a speaker of the House or you are a foreign leader, you know that, and that's the game that needs to be played.

You're not going to win them over by logic.

You might win them over by flattery.

Jeffrey Goldberg: I would just make a small editorial note-I've made this before-that if I were trying to be more popular, I would not put my name on Dulles Airport.

I just want to-that's special for the Washington Metro region.

But David, let's-if we could wrap this up here with you.

You spent a career covering Middle East dictators, leaders, men with massive egos who had difficulty assessing reality around them.

We are now in the most serious war of Donald Trump's presidency.

Talk about his personality and his psychological and emotional needs in the context of how the decisions are going to be made.

David Ignatius, Columnist, The Washington Post: So, if you want to understand how Trump sailed through intelligence warnings, what appeared to have been warnings from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that General Caine gave him, just watch one of the cabinet meetings or the clip that you just showed with Speaker Mike Johnson.

I mean, the degree of flattery, the inability, it seems, for people just to level with him and say, "Mr.

President, don't, Mr.

President, stop."

He is not a person who's able to hear that.

I'm reminded of Vladimir Putin, I'm sorry to say it, in February 2022, who sailed into Ukraine thinking it'd be over in a week, that it was going to be an easy kind of march to Kyiv and is still stuck four years later in a war he can't get out of.

And it happens when people are flattered and they don't listen to the evidence.

Jeffrey Goldberg: We'll talk about Ozymandias next week on this show.

I'm sorry that we're going to have to leave it there, but I want to thank our guests for joining me.

I want to thank you at home for watching us.

For more on Iran's use of asymmetrical warfare, please read Missy Ryan and Nancy Youssef's latest article at theatlantic.com.

I'm Jeffrey Goldberg.

Goodnight from Washington.