Retired US Navy Vice Admiral discusses risk of lengthy Iran conflict : NPR

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:

Now let’s move on to someone with deep experience in U.S. military strategy in the region, retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward. He grew up in Iran while his father was serving in the United States Navy. Our guest went on to become a Navy SEAL who led U.S. special operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He later served as deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East. He is now a fellow at the Iran Policy Project at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. It’s a pro-Israeli tank. Admiral Harward, thank you very much for joining us.

ROBERT HARWARD: Nice to be with you, Michel.

MARTIN: Now, you’ve made it clear that you think diplomacy has run its course. Then, at the start of the war, you told our All Things Considered colleague that the strike that killed the Iranian supreme leader was, I quote, “brilliant”. And now ? What is your assessment of the war effort led by the United States and Israel at this point?

HARWARD: Well, I think the strategies and priorities may be a little divergent – or at least I hope so. We know it, and I don’t think anyone is saying it: is regime change the end state? I believe so. You heard this from Israel. You haven’t heard it succinctly from our administration. So towards that measure and towards that goal, your strategy on how to get there – understanding that there will be another government in place after the hardliners step down. And in this case, destroying oil installations, infrastructure and civilian elements is almost counterproductive.

Today, the challenge for the United States in terms of prioritization is missiles. If we have spent 10 days in this campaign, and I have heard some estimates that the GCC countries are still preparing for 25 strikes per day, this indicates that we have failed to neutralize their power. And this must be the priority of the strategy. So these two different strategic priorities may be part of it, as both are currently working on different game plans.

And in terms of timing, if you manage to take out the missiles, then you’ll have all the time in the world to work on the regime, because they’re not going anywhere unless they run away. And as we’ve seen over the last 30 years, we’ve been very successful in targeting leaders and eliminating them. If you were a member of Al-Qaeda and your boss was killed and now you are in charge, your life expectancy would be very short.

MARTIN: Okay.

HARWARD: And I think we should expect the same thing here with Khamenei.

MARTIN: Let me talk about diet change in a minute. Let us focus for now on the question of military capabilities. As we have just heard from our colleague from Tel Aviv, Israel estimates that it can completely destroy Iran’s military capabilities in three weeks. Do you think this is realistic?

HARWARD: Well, I don’t know if that’s the best strategy. Is it better to destroy it than return it? As we saw in Iran in 1979, the military turned against the regime. And that’s what caused the turnaround. Is this the best strategy? Again, this is one of those strategic challenges where I don’t understand what the US and Israel’s position is, or how it’s resolved, or who’s working on what priority. So destroying it is an option, but is it your best decision if you want to see regime change?

MARTIN: You know, you just kind of alluded to it. President Trump predicted that a new leader chosen without his administration’s input would not last long. As we have heard, the son of the late Ayatollah has been designated to succeed him. Let’s say, for the sake of debate, that it’s true, that the son is also killed. But does this necessarily mean an opportunity for change in this region? I mean, some analysts have doubts.

HARWARD: Well, that’s the path you’re taking. And it has worked elsewhere – look at Panama, look at Venezuela. And Iran is not one of them. But the strategy is good. Just allow a regime that we support and that the people support to come to power. Anyone else remains a target. So I think it’s a very wise strategy.

MARTIN: And that’s what you’re saying. And President Trump has said he doesn’t want America’s involvement in Iran to be a forever war. But it seems – forgive me, we only have a minute left. But it appears it will take some time to achieve the goals the president says he wants.

HARWARD: I agree. But if they cannot project power and pose no threat to anyone outside Iran, then time no longer matters.

MARTIN: And as the war expands, do you think the United States needs to do more to gain support from its allies? Neither NATO, nor a Gulf state, nor even the Kurds, according to our correspondent, have formally joined this effort.

HARWARD: Well, you’ve seen them all, the public announcements that they would defend their sovereign territory. And this is a step in that direction.

MARTIN: And do you think – before we let you go, 30 seconds from now, do you think the United States and Israel have accurately estimated Iran’s capacity to sustain this conflict?

HARWARD: Well, I think their targeting is driven by that concern.

MARTIN: Okay. This is retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward. Admiral, thank you very much for your time and for your ideas.

HARWARD: Thank you, Michael.

Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit the terms of use and permissions pages on our website at www.npr.org for more information.

The accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. The text of the transcript may be edited to correct errors or match updates to the audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio recording.