The War Is Spiraling | Robert Pape on Iran and the Escalation Trap

[00:00:00]Good morning and welcome to the At the Waters Edge podcast where we look for insights beyond the headlines take a practitioner's view on national security and geopolitics. It's the 21st of July 2026. Let's get started. Now today we have our next installment in our ongoing series with Professor Robert P from the University of Chicago looking at the escalation trap and the ongoing war between the US and Iran. Now we're launching this on Tuesday. Next week's episode will also be filmed on Tuesday.

[00:00:24]Today we had some scheduling conflicts we had to work around uh for Mondays, but then we'll be going back to Monday after next week. If you've enjoyed this content with Fster, please be sure to like, subscribe, and share an episode with a friend. It really helps get the show out to more people. And links to the professor substack and the substack for the show will be in the show notes.

[00:00:42]Please subscribe to both. With that, let's get to the professor. There's plenty to talk about this week.

[00:00:49]>> Well, good morning and welcome back. How you doing today? I'm >> doing very good, Scott. Thank you for having me. Pleasure as always. It's been a very interesting week. Um, let's see, just a few of the highlights. Uh, the Houthies are announcing a blockade of the Red Sea. We've got three more US service members dead, raising the total to 17. There's potentially a fourth one, but I don't know if that's been confirmed yet. We appear to be attempting to bomb Iranian civilian Iranian civilian infrastructure at scale. Now, uh, we've reinstated a naval blockade and Iran's president is describing this as a full-scale war.

[00:01:20]Now, am I missing anything?

[00:01:22]>> No. No, Scott. Then before we get into uh the the actual events, I just want to say uh how much this is a time to also appreciate um our men and women who are serving uh in the US military and especially those that are in the Middle East and right on the front lines right now. Uh you just explained that we lost um at least three over the weekend uh over the last several weeks. There appear to be a hundred or more who are wounded. Uh and that is all information that um is is coming out slowly but it is it is coming out and that should make us all extremely grateful for uh uh the sacrifice and the competence under the pressure that we are we are seeing. Um so what you are what we are seeing Scott is a spiral phase of the escalation trap. Um, what you are describing is not really just a tit for tat as some people are describing. They're trying to find quick little phrases here. This isn't really a tit for tat. What you are describing is a spiral. It is a vertical spiral as you're explaining as we're moving up vertically the escalation ladder to these more punishing attacks on both sides. uh here uh um uh probably the most um uh telling moment of the uh vertical has been now the multiple uh Kuwaiti desalinization plants that have been hit. Uh glad to talk about this in some detail. Uh I think you're getting these posts on the escalation trap, this breaking analysis where I put the map out, people can really see how what how vulnerable this is uh here. So um there are millions who depend on that wa on water from these plants and there is not water backup for millions. So so this is not a situation where um you know you just uh easily boil water or something.

[00:03:22]This can be very very challenging anyway. Uh but there's also then the horizontal nature of the spiral that is occurring meaning the Red Sea now has come into play. uh and um among um now why is all this happening? Uh it's all happening because uh President Trump has is now determined to reverse uh Iran's control of the strait of Hormuz and uh Iran is determined to hold on to its control of the strait of Hormuz. So this is a zero sum. Both of these cannot stand. uh one side or the other will be uh in control or not of the straight of Hormuz. And I don't just mean today, I mean a month from now. I mean January. I mean a year from now at the W's edge is supported by gray zone advisory. You don't need to be Boeing or Exxon to be impacted by geopolitical events. A sanctions list changes. A supplier goes dark. A shipping lane gets rerouted overnight and nobody warned you. Now big companies keep consultants on retainers just for this. Most small and mediumsiz companies have to find out the hard way.

[00:04:30]That's where Grreyzone steps in.

[00:04:31]Geopolitical risk analysis size for companies with 50 employees, not necessarily 50,000. Learn more at grreyzoneadvisory.com.

[00:04:40]>> So this is the this is the nature of the problem. Now, in the meantime, uh we're not just likely to have escalation like this, but there's already uh um um um warnings. This is coming from Israel.

[00:04:54]So, question mark intel. Uh, but Israel about pickaxe mountain and centrifuges that are uh already operating at pickaxe mountain, which would be exactly what you would do to move the 60% enriched uranium to the 90%. So this is uh now uh and this is also by the way Scott uh when I when we've been discussing uh you will know this but just to let your listeners know and some will know this but I've been modeling the bombing of Iran for 20 years and this war started not on February 28 but according to my modeling it started when the United States bombed Ford that was in June 2025 and in my modeling which I was always modeling the bombing of of Iran when the United States bombed Fordo, which it would do because it was the only uh country with the big u Moab, the big bomb to be able to hit Fordo. That is what would trigger the escalation trap beginning. And the reason is because we would certainly uh almost surely destroy the uh ability of Fordo to uh enrich uranium, but we wouldn't be able to get uh know or even get or even know if uh the 60% in radium was still there. uh and also where it would go. It would there would be immediate concerns of dispersal. We'd worry about trucks and I've been saying this for years and this is how then a year later we would do regime change bombing. So that was always the prediction here. Year after year after year of the model, how do you even get to regime change bombing? You first bomb for and the reason you uh do regime change is because you're worried about that enriched material becoming a nuclear weapon. you won't have the Iranians aren't going to let the IAEA back in, etc., etc. All of which has happened exactly exactly as the modeling has laid out in detail. Um, and so now you're in a situation where again we are worried about um Pickax Mountain. We have US apparently because it's been reported as US US satellite uh uh of uh uh trucks uh and so forth around Pickaxe Mountain. What would you be doing at Pickax Mountain? I don't think you're having a coffee clutch. Uh so you're you're these are what you would be doing. Now Israel has uh thrown information in and people would say, "Well, we don't trust Israel." Well, back in got to remember 2003 when we went to war in Iraq. Uh we had all this intel about um uh WMD and I was very public saying this intel wasn't worth the paper it was written on. That didn't stop the fear because it was the fear, not the intel that mattered. That's what's happening here. That's what's going to happen here. Unless you have intel that decisively shows that it's not happening. How would you >> We can point out that we had intel decisively that Iran wasn't developing a nuclear weapon before Trump decided to go to war with Iran.

[00:07:52]>> Yeah, that's for sure. Yeah. No, I'm not doubting that. I'm And again, I'm not telling you they are. I'm telling you the politics of this and how the fear plays out is not oh I must have uh you know high confidence they're developing a nuclear weapon. No, it's the other way around. I must have high confidence they are not developing a nuclear weapon and proving a negative incredibly hard.

[00:08:16]Rumsfeld uh this was Bush's uh secretary of defense. He he often would say um absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That was the famous phrase that got um us into that 2003 war in Iraq.

[00:08:34]And then it turned out that there was nothing. There was no WMD. So this was completely wrong. But that didn't stop it. And in fact, the supporters of the war continued to support the war for years even without that. And the reason is because of the future fear. It's the fear, Scott, that matters to the politics of this. And people might say, "Well, these uh presidents and these, you know, senior leaders, these generals, they're not supposed to be fearful." Well, yeah, right. Okay.

[00:09:03]They're still human beings. Put on a good face, but I'm just This is just not realistic to expect they're not going to respond to fear. So, uh it's how they respond to fear that's really usually the issue. Uh so, anyway, but I'm just pointing out that this is the the seriousness. Now, could could uh President Trump pull back from this point? Of course, he hasn't gone forward this and and what he could go forward with is of course heavier bombing and also maybe uh trying to seize some territorial objectives um like Jas or something like that on the Iranian coast, things like that. Uh he he until he does it, he hasn't done it. And so that's really important to know. So there is no inevitability here. that's set to for Trump to truly pull back at this point. Um, unless the Iranians would completely surrender everything, including giving complete access to Pigax Mountain tomorrow. Okay. Unless for President Trump to to pull back, it basically means the end of his presidency.

[00:10:08]>> Uh, it doesn't mean he would be uh impeached and with and and taken out of office. I don't mean it that way. I mean, he would become Lynden Johnson in a heartbeat, meaning Lynon Johnson when he withdrew from running for reelection because no, if he were to abandon this at this point, uh, and so abruptly, um, as some people are a lot of people are calling, in fact, I I wish that could happen because the consequences here are going to be bad. Um, horrible. But but the fact is we need to understand that every Republican running for Congress would likely abandon him and want never want him around in during their rallies and so forth. So you you you are talking about the absolute lamest of lame ducks instantly. That is the pressure. Now you might say, well, what does that mean then? Is President Trump choosing personal politics over strategy? Well, this is what I tried to explain on Monday's escalation trap. Again, I'm I'm I've been traveling a lot. I just came back from New York, Scott, so I don't really know how much anybody's following anything at this point. All I'm doing is writing, posting, getting on planes, talking. Okay. I don't I haven't even checked. So, anyway, um the uh so if you want to track the comments, you let me know, Scott. I need someone I I I read your Substack this morning, actually, uh getting ready for this. And two things I want to talk about because you brought up uh the the fact that success requires the opening of the straight, but the opening out of the straight is actually not determined by Iran or the United States, it's determined by commercial markets.

[00:11:40]>> Exactly. We're not in charge of victory.

[00:11:42]>> Yeah. Yep. Yep. So, as much as we want to say, you know, oh, this is just up to Trump to declare victory and walk out or declare victory. No, actually, it's up to uh the commercial shippers. So, so this >> God bless the free market. Well, this is what happened in Venezuela and for the same reason. And I posted this in January on S. You can say all you want that you're going to go and open up oil and you're going to do this or you're going to do that, but it's the um civilian contractors who got to go in and do all that. And as I kept explaining, uh they uh the the given the geography of Venezuela, etc., etc., this would be very very dangerous. And they don't want a bullet. They want a paycheck. So, this is not something that they're they're up for. That's why they're civilian contractors. Okay.

[00:12:26]>> Yes.

[00:12:27]>> Not civilian contractors like the CIA has civilian contractors.

[00:12:31]>> Actually, these are not mercenaries paid by the CIA. And we might try to pay some of them. But still, the problem here that we have is we don't even determine uh victory. Victory is determined, you could even say by by the market, but it's not the price of oil. It's literally whether the shippers will take the risk. And then you might say, well, Bob, Professor Pave, uh we see ships trying to get out and it's risky and they're trying to get out. Yeah, they're trying to get out before they get killed in the escalation that's coming. So, so just had from their perspective, they're in jail. The jail is about to get bombed. If they try to break from jail, do a jailbreak, they might get shot by the guards, but if they stay in jail, they're going to get bombed by both sides. So, what's your choice?

[00:13:16]>> You put it like that.

[00:13:18]>> Exactly. So this is not indication that oh sure everybody's trusting America. No no no no that's not what's going on.

[00:13:27]What's going on is you have a very very uh spiral uh phase moment here of the escalation trap. Uh things are undoubtedly you know causing a lots and lots of fear. And in that fear now enter some intelligence about nuclear weapons that oh that helps. Okay. But it's not going to be easy to just dismiss even though people will say we can't trust Netanyah. I mean I understand all that but that is not going to stop these dynamics the way I'm explaining them. Uh now it doesn't mean everybody will get involved with the fear but it's pointing in all this is pointing in one direction and the problem is we don't even determine victory here.

[00:14:05]>> Let me ask you about this. So this seems like the the big next step America could take other than the current status quo where the entire world economy just slowly bleeds itself out and we hit catastrophe. The next step that we could take to shake things up would be putting troops on the ground. Now from a rational military analyst perspective, this seems like a terrible idea for all sorts of reasons that aren't particularly complicated. But from a political calculus for decision makers in Washington, namely Trump. What might push us into that direction despite how idiotic it seems on paper? Yeah, it's identical to uh what happened with President Johnson in the Vietnam War.

[00:14:41]President Johnson understood every step when he escalated, it was unlikely to work and he did it anyway. And in the post I gave you yesterday, Scott, I'm quoting from the tapes, the contemporaneous tapes of Johnson at the time. These are not reminiscences.

[00:14:59]Okay? So you we know as a fact what his thinking was. uh and President Trump might be going through a similar thing which is uh these r the risks here by military planners are saying this is not likely to work. So why would President Trump do this? Well, number one, I'm explaining that it is a political decision putting politics over strategy.

[00:15:19]Uh but I don't think it's quite right to view it as a cynical political decision because that's not what President Johnson saw and that's not what I saw when I advised four white houses from 2001 to 24. Uh that's four West Winks.

[00:15:33]Okay. Uh and so I um and these are dozens of meetings, so not just one or two. And um so I am not um uh I don't believe uh that that all these folks are just pure cynical. Now there's some doubt. There's no doubt some of that is there. I'm not doubting that is there at all. But what I think many of them believe is they are indispensable to the security of the country to the and they because they have equated their domestic agenda with the country's national interest.

[00:16:06]This isn't just the country's national interest. Republican, Democrat, triangulate the middle. what these uh what what politicians what political leaders do and I've seen this I won't say any words but we have uh President Johnson in Vietnam with the words is what they do uh very often is they think yes as bad as X Y or Z may be losing me as president is worse because uh that president sees him or herself and it's been him so far as uh the key to the domestic agenda.

[00:16:42]And that's what happened for President uh Johnson. He believed that if he did not go forward, his domestic agenda would go belly up uh not just uh a saving escalation. So what he saw those troops dying for was not Vietnam, was for civil rights, the um uh the Great Society, all that domestic legislation in the 1960s. Now I of course never have talked to President Trump. All right?

[00:17:11]Um, and if I did, I wouldn't really be revealing it anything. Okay. Uh, so can't do that. However, let's just imagine what would that mean in this situation. What that would mean is President Trump um going forward um with the death of our troops uh on the table.

[00:17:28]uh not to get a Qatari jet, uh going forward uh to stop immigration, going forward to deport, going forward for um uh uh the rest of his uh domestic agenda here uh in Congress. Um uh the which which right now is a lot about voting by the way, but I just point out that this is what is would be the parallel with uh with Linda Johnson. And so, um, it's very important here to understand that I don't think President President Johnson never gave a a speech. Wh why why are those troops dying in Vietnam? He never and people would say John Kerry famously Senator Kerry would say they're dying.

[00:18:06]They died for a mistake. Well, what we know from President Johnson is he had a reason. He just didn't say it. He's he's saying it to lots and lots of people, which is uh they're dying for uh civil rights and they're dying for the domestic agenda. uh now maybe President Trump will actually come forth and explain this logic in this cold logic terms that I'm putting out. This is what needs to be. So it's not just President Trump give a speech, rally the troops.

[00:18:31]Okay. Yeah, that would be that would be nice for a lot of people, but what we really want to know is why. The answer to the why.

[00:18:39]Professor Pap is putting on the table what that would actually look like for real. And it's important because our troops are now dying and they deserve to know why. An actual why. Not just here's a nice here's, you know, prayers and thoughts and here's the flag. Here's the why. And I am one has has I'm not been I'm not a pro party guy. That's why nobody's ever going to hire me as national security because I don't put party above. So I'm I gave that that ship sailed a long time ago. That's why I've been privileged to be able to advise different white houses here. Um, and to be a foreign policy adviser to Ron Paul and Barack Obama at the same time, at least for a short term. Okay, short short time. So, think about all that. So, this doesn't make any sense for somebody building a career to, you know, dot dot dot. That's just not what I do. I'm I'm very happy in the in the lane I'm in. And the reason is because I will not put party above country. I just won't do it. And this is what you are seeing here over and over, Scott. Well, and the name of this podcast is at the wat's edge because as the old phrase it was, politics stops at the wat's edge and we should actually take that to heart. So, appreciate you tanking your future employment prospects in the federal government, but we we certainly appreciate your analysis here.

[00:19:54]>> And and look, I got a nice home.

[00:19:56]>> Yeah. Still good.

[00:19:57]>> Exactly. I'm not sitting out there in one of those tin cans for nine month.

[00:20:02]I'm watching this on CNN. I'm going, "Oh my god."

[00:20:04]>> Yeah.

[00:20:05]>> So, it seems like there's a failure of the system here, too. And I know you got to run soon, so I'll ask you this and we can we can wrap. Um, you talk about Donald Trump being a lame duck president, but wasn't one of the reasons that we have term limits for a president so that in at least that second term, they can have some moral courage to do what's right, not just what's politically expedient? Well, we adopted that term limit um Scott after uh Franklin Delanor Roosevelt FDR died and he uh was elected four times. And basically we thought that you just could never get rid of of FDR and and probably if he was still even if he wasn't I guess we put out the tarp we might still be voting for him um even though he's dead. So so that uh but what that was really about how do you prevent a king from essentially emerging? Now, we didn't quite call it that way. Now, of course, there's other things you could say in addition, which is there are secondary knock-on effects. Maybe this would encourage better character. Uh, but what I would tell you is that, and I see this not just with folks in a West Wing, but I also see this with um professors, people like me, they care about their legacy uh here. Now, when you're in your 20s and 30s, it's hard to imagine you're even going to have a legacy. Um and um and someone and someone like me doesn't think we've done enough to earn a legacy. So we're working like you wonder why why are we working like crazy? We're trying to earn it. Okay? We haven't really done any enough. You see what I mean? And that's like normal. So if you want to know if you look at those older professors out there that are on all these podcasts and you want to know what what's going on, why are they working 18 hours a day at 80 years old? This is what's going on.

[00:21:48]Okay. Um but it's legacy. And so that issue of legacy doesn't term limit out.

[00:21:54]You you see what I'm saying? They they it's not really um this is what the economists we're into. We have a huge of course a famous economics department at the University of Chicago. Uh and uh I've been in uh debates uh behind closed doors sometimes with some of these famous folks and uh and that's what they want to argue that you no you shouldn't really care because you're going to die and all that. This just like seriously why why are you at 80 years old still pitching? We're still doing the models workshop at 80 years old. It's because of legacy. So, so this is that debate.

[00:22:25]You see what I mean? The utility function doesn't really stop at death.

[00:22:29]Now, of course, you can't do anymore after you're after you're gone. Um, but nonetheless, um, that's what's at issue, Scott, and that's what I think, um, I when I hear President Trump speak, I almost always hear in my mind him talking about his legacy uh, here. I I don't really hear him framing it as um you know um and and I and I think that he's 80 years old. I mean, is he going to enjoy all these billions and billions? I I find this hard to believe, you know. I mean, what exactly is you see what I'm saying? So, I think that it's about this issue of legacy.

[00:23:07]>> Okay. Well, I know you got to run. Thank you so much for your time this morning and uh we'll talk again next week.

[00:23:12]>> Okay. And thanks you and thank you to to everybody here listening. Thank you so much. Bye-bye.