Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and contributing writer for The Atlantic, told PBS NewsHour in an interview broadcast Monday that he believes defeat for the United States in its conflict with Iran is not only possible but likely. Kagan, who co-founded the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century and was an early advocate for the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, said he sees no viable path to achieving American objectives without a full-scale ground invasion that he does not believe President Trump or the American public would support.
The conflict has centered on control of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil shipping route through which roughly 20 percent of the world's oil passes. Kagan argued that if Iran emerges from the current hostilities in control of the strait, it fundamentally alters the balance of power in the Gulf region. 'If Iran can charge tolls, if Iran determines who gets in and out of the strait and when, that's just enormous power,' Kagan said during the interview with Amna Nawaz. 'I think it's even more power than they would have if they were able to develop a nuclear weapon.'
Kagan noted that U.S. airstrikes targeting Iranian leadership ran for 37 days but produced no strategic concessions from Tehran. He described Iran's response to recent diplomatic overtures as effectively rejecting American demands, saying the proposal Iran sent back 'was a slap in Trump's face.' The proposal reportedly included requests for war reparations, sanctions relief, and formal recognition of Iranian control over the strait.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive critics of current Iran policy have long argued that military escalation risks entangling the United States in another costly Middle Eastern conflict without achieving sustainable results. They point to public opinion polls showing majority opposition to large-scale U.S. military involvement in Iran, and argue that diplomatic engagement produces better outcomes than sustained bombing campaigns or threats of invasion.
Former State Department officials who served under Democratic administrations have argued that the Trump administration's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran eliminated leverage the United States previously held. They contend that restoring diplomatic channels and rejoining international negotiations offers a more viable path to reducing tensions over the strait than continued military pressure, which they say only hardens Iranian resolve.
Humanitarian organizations have raised concerns about civilian casualties from sustained airstrikes and the broader regional destabilization that extended conflict creates. Democratic lawmakers have called for increased congressional oversight of administration war powers, arguing that any expanded military campaign would require explicit authorization rather than relying on existing counterterrorism authorities.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative foreign policy analysts argue that appearing unwilling to use military force emboldens adversaries and undermines American credibility with allies. They note that Iran has attacked U.S. vessels in the Gulf and violated previous cease-fire agreements, suggesting that diplomatic overtures without credible deterrence have failed.
Supporters of a hardline approach say the Strait of Hormuz represents an existential economic interest that the United States cannot cede to hostile control. They argue that failing to reverse Iranian gains would signal weakness to China, which depends on Gulf oil shipments, and could accelerate moves by Asian allies to develop independent military capabilities rather than relying on American security guarantees.
Republican lawmakers have largely backed the administration's stated position of keeping military options on the table while pursuing negotiations. They point to the effectiveness of the initial bombing campaign in degrading Iranian military infrastructure as evidence that sustained pressure can eventually force concessions, though they acknowledge the limits Kagan identified regarding what airstrikes alone can achieve against a geographically large country.
What the Numbers Show
The Strait of Hormuz handles approximately 21 million barrels of oil daily, representing roughly 20 percent of global oil consumption, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration data. Any disruption to shipping through the waterway has immediate effects on global energy markets and pump prices in the United States.
U.S. military operations against Iran began following Iranian attacks on American naval vessels and bases in the region. The administration reported that 37 days of sustained airstrikes targeted Iranian military installations, command structures, and infrastructure. Despite these strikes, Iran has not signaled willingness to negotiate over strait access or halt its maritime activities.
Defense analysts note that a full-scale invasion of Iran would require deploying hundreds of thousands of troops and could cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to estimates from prior military planning exercises. The United States currently maintains approximately 40,000 to 60,000 personnel in the Middle East region, far fewer than what would be needed for a regime-change ground operation.
Public polling conducted by multiple firms shows American voters are deeply skeptical of large-scale military interventions in the Middle East following the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surveys indicate support for targeted strikes but substantial opposition to ground combat operations in Iran.
The Bottom Line
The Kagan interview highlights a fundamental strategic dilemma facing U.S. policymakers: the gap between what military force can plausibly achieve in Iran and what American interests require. Airstrikes have proven effective at degrading specific targets but insufficient to compel Iranian compliance on the central question of strait control, while the only military option analysts believe could permanently resolve that issue is an invasion that neither the president nor the public appears willing to authorize.
The trajectory Kagan describes—Iran emerging stronger with greater influence over global energy markets—depends on assumptions about continued conflict and alliance deterioration. Whether that outcome materializes may depend on whether negotiations produce any breakthrough, or whether both sides find a face-saving way to de-escalate without formally resolving the underlying disputes over strait access.
Allies in Europe and Asia are watching closely. Japan, South Korea, and European NATO members all rely heavily on Gulf oil shipments, and their assessments of American reliability will shape defense spending decisions and security arrangements for decades to come, regardless of how the current crisis resolves.