In a series of coordinated attacks, the United States and Israel have “decapitated” the Iranian government by killing its leadership and devastating the country’s defense capabilities.
Philip Potter, professor of public policy at the University of Virginia’s Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy and director of the National Security Data and Policy Institute, says the military action may be “resetting the table.” He agreed to answer questions a few days after the military action began.
Q. The administration says this incursion will take five to six weeks. Do you agree?
A. It depends on the objective. That’s about the operational time that would be required for the military to clear out Iranian air defenses and hit the high-value targets. The military will have an operational plan and a list of targetable assets. They’re going to roll down that list and they know how about long that’s going to take.
The conflict could end more quickly if the Iranian leadership decides to capitulate. And it could go longer if the Trump administration decides that regime change is the ultimate objective. I suspect that, given what we have seen from the administration so far, they are not going to be willing to put boots on the ground, and it could be difficult to dislodge the regime without that.
Philip Potter says the current clash is an extension of the Israeli concept of “mowing the grass,” sharp military operations that reduce capabilities and deter future attacks. (Photo by Matt Riley, University Communications)
Q. Did the Iranians see this coming?
A. We’ve been telegraphing the possibility for a while. That said, while the Iranian regime probably knew that this was a real possibility, there was not a great deal they could do to mitigate the damage and prepare. Prior engagements had already softened their air defenses and blunted their missile capabilities. And they clearly could not obscure where their top leadership was. That’s a huge problem.
Q. The Israelis have made some incursions into Lebanon in response to Iran-backed Hezbollah attacks. How will this affect the outcome?
A. I think the U.S. and Israelis have an appetite for resetting the table in the Middle East. There seems to be a sense that the uncertainty that will inevitably result from this engagement is preferable to the adversarial status quo that has persisted in one form or another since 1979. Simultaneously, there seems to be an idea that regardless of who’s running Iran, the U.S. and Israel will benefit from degrading their capabilities to the point that they are not relevant.
From the Israeli standpoint, Hezbollah is a very dangerous part of the Iranian network. They’ve already done a ton of damage to Hezbollah. I think the opportunity to go in and clean that out further is hard to resist. This is the extension of the Israeli concept of “mowing the grass” with sharp military operations that reduce capabilities and deter attacks. They’ve done this for a long time in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.
U.S. decision-makers may also be thinking along these lines. Some of the commentary that’s come out seems to indicate perceived value in simply reducing the Iranian capacity to do us harm, even if the leadership of the country is ultimately no better than what came before. I don’t know if that’s going to work. The concern would be that it trades short-term gains for potentially long-term dangers.
Q. How are other Middle East countries reacting to the situation?
A. It turns out no one likes getting hit with missiles and UAVs. There’s evidence that the Iranians miscalculated. Popping off everywhere, all at once, is probably not a great strategy. Many countries in the region are now likely saying, “We weren’t excited about the Americans doing this, but now we’re in the fight because we’ve been targeted.” I would have thought that there would have been some prudence in the Iranians concentrating their fire on specific targets, hopes of punching through either Israeli or U.S. air bases. That lack of prudence could be a consequence of the decapitation of the leadership and the resulting loss of command and control.
