Middle East Forum Chief Strategist Jim Hanson joined Piers Morgan Uncensored to argue that the core objective of the conflict with Iran has remained consistent: preventing the regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He contends that military action has severely degraded Iran’s capabilities, but that a full blockade—targeting oil exports and economic lifelines—is the decisive step needed to force Tehran to surrender its enriched uranium and potentially trigger long-term regime collapse.
MORGAN: And Jim Hanson, U.S. Army Special Forces veteran and Chief Strategist for the Middle East Forum. Welcome. Yeah, Jim Hanson, it seems to me the goalposts have shifted significantly throughout this six-week war so far. We’ve gone from wanting regime change to total surrender to now the main theme is we’ve got to stop Iran getting a nuke and so on. It’s all been very confusing and very inconsistent. But ultimately, if at the center of this is Donald Trump’s claim that Iran must be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon, can this war be perceived to be successful if the enriched uranium which Iran possesses remains in Iran in their possession?
HANSON: Well, to extend the metaphor, I’d say that’s the holy grail. You have to get that. And I don’t think there has been a shifting of goalposts. The goal all along has been to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon—being able to develop one, having the initiative, having the ability, having the ballistic missile programs and other conventional arms that protect them and stop others from removing that capability. From that perspective, all of those things have at least been put on hold or set back decades. Their defense industrial base is non-existent at this point. They’re running out of missiles and drones and everything else.
HANSON: At some point you have to look at President Trump’s decision. He had to either accept that they had begun trying to develop their nuclear program again—which has one purpose. Let’s not pretend it’s about nuclear power. It never has been. It’s always been about the Islamic Revolution’s bomb. And he said if we don’t do something to stop that at this point, they’re going to continue, and at some point another president is going to see a mushroom cloud. He’s not going to be the guy who kicked the can down the road. So he took massive political damage to do the right thing for America and the world.
MORGAN: But how is he going to get the enriched uranium without committing a significant number of ground forces, with all the danger that goes with it?
HANSON: He’s going to break the Islamic Republic’s will to continue. The blockade hurts them more than us. They need to get oil revenue and they need to bring things in. If that stops—and we have every capability to do that—it’s already started. Then they only have a couple weeks where they have enough cash reserves. And the other thing to look at is if they don’t get their oil out, their fields are pumping, their storage capability is at 60%. That’ll be filled up in less than two weeks. After that, they have to shut their wells down, and that breaks the wells. That ruins the ability to continue pumping. So they’ve got a two-week window, tops, if we enforce this blockade—and that’s where the maximum pressure comes from. The kinetic phase broke their dangerous capabilities. This breaks their ability to continue both internally and externally.
MORGAN: Well, I’m not convinced by that. And the reason is I think there’s also a credibility issue with President Trump, to be honest. After the 12-day war last summer, he was saying very loudly, “We have destroyed their nuclear capability, put it back decades,” and yet within eight months, he felt the need to launch a full-fledged war against Iran for precisely the reasons he said had been neutralized. So there is a credibility issue. How do we know whose word to take if suddenly we get the same statements being made again?
HANSON: Donald Trump—he loves hyperbolic rhetoric. He plays information warfare as well as any leader on the planet. Back to Reagan was probably the last guy who did that style. Reagan’s was polished movie star; Trump’s is more bombastic New York real estate tycoon. He does that to throw the other side off balance. He claims things he wants to be true to push outcomes. He uses every technique of the art of the deal.
HANSON: In this case, there was tremendous damage, and their nuclear program was broken in the 12-day war. When we saw they were just going to rebuild it, he had to recalculate and say they didn’t learn the lesson. We broke it—they couldn’t make a bomb right now—but they’re going to try again. And the Shia Islamist ideology driving Iran includes beliefs about an Armageddon-like event bringing the return of the 12th Imam. So you can’t trust them. You have to look at the long game. President Trump took the political hit to act decisively and try to remove that threat long term.
MORGAN: Okay, so quickly as we wrap up—give me a prediction for what you think is going to happen.
HANSON: I think we will go ahead and blockade the Strait, stop them from gaining revenue and bringing things in, and that will break the regime enough that they will capitulate. They’ll give up the enriched uranium, figuring they can rebuild later or cheat. Then you’ll see a longer, slower degradation of the Islamic Republic until the people of Iran feel free enough to rise up—with some help—and bring about a new government that serves their interests and is not a menace to the region.
