What will it take to secure a ceasefire and end the devastating conflict between Iran, the U.S., and Israel?
Dennis Ross, former Ambassador and Middle East negotiator, theorizes there are multiple, situationally-dependent paths forward. As he speaks with Jen on the current status of our war on Iran, he speculates on how the Trump administration can secure a ceasefire while claiming victory. Will anyone give up control of the Strait of Hormuz? Are keeping sanctions against Iran a non-starter? Do the Houthis and other external parties need to be addressed simultaneously? Tune in to find out.
Ambassador Dennis Ross is the counselor and William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He worked across administrations to successfully secure peace deals and negotiations in the Middle East. Ambassador Ross has held many titles, positions, and achievements, which you can read more about here.
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, Inter-in-Chief of the Contrarian. I am delighted to have with us Ambassador Dennis Ross. He has served as a Middle East negotiator for presence of both parties, and is really one of the deepest thinkers about the Middle East. Welcome, Dennis.
Dennis Ross
Good to be with you, Jen.
Jen Rubin
What, as you understand, is the status of the war itself? What do the Iranians have and have left, and what is the posture of the Israeli and the U.S. forces at this point?
Dennis Ross
Look, I think from a… from the narrow standpoint of… What we have destroyed… what we have set back. Probably by every military measure. This campaign has gone very well. And that’s not to be dismissed. But the problem with, when you say we’ve hit 10,000 targets. Is, what is the value of those targets? How much have they been destroyed? I think the majority of what we’ve hit has been destroyed. I think the Iranian… Really don’t have any nuclear infrastructure that is left. They have lost probably… Two-thirds to three-quarters of all their missile launchers. Almost all of the industrial base that serves the ballistic missile production capability has been, I think, probably Greatly damaged, if not destroyed. Probably some high percentage of their… Producing capability to produce drones has probably also been set back, but not totally destroyed. So, the narrow military measures, I think, go pretty far. The issue of… Of the fact that they can still launch. They had to begin with thousands of short-range ballistic missiles. Thousands of drones. They probably had, going into this war even 1,500 long-range ballistic missiles. So… They have expended a lot, but it’s clear they’ve approached the war with a strategy to be able to endure. So that meant they weren’t going to fire big barrages. 50 to 100 missiles at a time. It meant they would be much smaller in number, spread out over time, and able to do it for a period of time. Based on an assumption that they could outlast us. And based on an assumption as well, that there’s kind of an asymmetry, not just of interest, but a symmetry of pain endurance. their view, especially the Revolutionary Guard, given what’s been set back. Their view is basically to give in to what Trump seeks, in their mind, is itself a threat to the survival of the regime, and given that, they’re prepared to pay almost any price. They will ignore the… what is going to be the long-term consequence for the economy. Because they’re living for today. And… and they read him as being more susceptible to the pressure. Because they control the Strait of Hormuz. Probably the greatest single failure of this campaign. Was to not be in a position where you could prevent them from gaining control over the Strait of Hormuz, which gave them a chokehold on the global economy. It cannot be an accident that the Houthis stayed out of this for a month, now suddenly fire a couple missiles at Israel, which is clearly designed in the current context, not so much against the Israelis, but to signal, think what we can do to the Babdamundeb. So, 20% of the world’s oil goes through Straight of Hormuz. you know, I think 40% of urea, which is related to fertilizers, goes through the strata vermoose. 12% of the world’s oil goes through the Batel Mendev. half of all the container ships go through the Babylon Deb, so here are two true Chokeholds. Choke points. And the Iranians feel that they have… they certainly control the one, and they may… may have leverage on the other. By controlling the one, they have enormous leverage on the price of oil, and it creates what I call a fundamental paradox, even a contradiction. To keep the price of oil where it is, meaning about $115 a barrel, as opposed to $150, Or higher. We allow the Iranians right now to export their oil at a time when they’re not allowing anybody else, or they’re determining who can export the oil.
Jen Rubin
Yes.
Dennis Ross
This is a complete contradiction. So, for the tactical purpose of trying to keep the price of oil lower, we give up the strategic advantage to the Iranians in the current context, and it makes them think… We can outlast them. So, in short, that’s where we are. Is there a negotiation going on? Yes, I think there’s a negotiation going on. Is it a negotiation that’s going to produce what Trump wants? It all depends on the following. It comes down to this. how fearful is this current Revolutionary Guard leadership, because they’re the ones calling the shots. How fearful are they of either the seizure of Card Island or the seizure of the southern coast? That… that abuts. the straights. If they are fearful that they could truly lose this, and that affects their decision-making, then we’ll probably get a deal before we have to use force. If they’re not, if they think, look, we can impose even a higher price. And we can live with what they’re doing. And they’ll have to concede. Then there won’t be a deal, and then it… It moves us towards using the ground forces, the Marines, and the… Brigade of the 82nd Airborne that are moving to the region.
Jen Rubin
So, there are multiple trajectories going on. The price of oil and the amount of money the Iranians are making is one. the depletion of U.S. and Israeli interceptors and the ability of Iran to control them, theoretically, you reach a point at which a lot more of them are getting through, or Israel and the US have to decide which ones they’re gonna intercept or not. And then, of course, you have, the great unknown factor, which is at what point does Trump decide that he is, he wants in some fashion to… control this. But the question is how he controls her, or how he gets out. Let’s say he’s made the decision, okay, not working out the way I envisioned. What’s the deal that could unlock, all the parties from this? Is it the Iranians give him a bunch of empty promises, and he waves, victory in our time? and that’s the end of it? What is the mechanism by which we, get out of it, that the Iranians get enough of what they want, that Trump has something that he can waive as, you know, victory in our time? What’s that formula?
Dennis Ross
Well, I think in the negotiations that are being conducted, the formula is probably… they give up control of the straits, but it’s gonna have to be something Practical with clear consequences if somehow they try to do this again. And what he gets is… he gets a commitment on the removal of the 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium to 60%. I think he gets very little on the ballistic missiles. I think he gets some, you know, some general promises on only political support, not military support or economic support for… the proxies. I think he claims that he was… this was always about guaranteeing they would never have a nuclear weapon. And… and they get sanctions lifted. Look, we’re in a paradoxical situation right now, because… They’ve gotten… they’re able to sell their oil, so we’re doing the equivalent of waiving the sanctions on their sale of oil, I think they get an agreement that goes beyond just that. Now, there’s an alternative. An alternative would be… he claimed he does it unilaterally. And he says, we achieved everything we needed to achieve, which, by the way, is true. they’re in no position to rebuild the nuclear infrastructure anytime soon. Honestly, they’re in no position to rebuild the ballistic missile infrastructure anytime soon, because they would… the… it’s A, it’s arduous. B, it requires a lot of material, C, it requires a lot of money, and if they throw all our resources into that, they’re just deepening the contradiction within the country. You know, it’s only a matter of time before the restiveness of the public will express itself again. So, you know, he can… he declares it’s… it’s over. His problem is they have to be willing to accept that it’s over. If he wants to end it unilaterally, he needs two things, that when he says we have a ceasefire now, they stop shooting. And two, they no longer control the Straits. And they agree that they’re no longer controlling trade. So even if it’s… even not a formal agreement, it may be through the mediators, there’s an understanding. How stable the ladder would be? Hard to say, because what happens if… you know, after 2 months. They say, well, we’re now… we’re now imposing a fee. On anybody who wants to transit. What are we gonna do? We’re going back to war?
Jen Rubin
It does seem… almost beyond comprehension that all of this could be decided all at once. In the Gaza situation, you had a Phase 1 and a Phase 2. The problem is that you rarely get to Phase 2, but be that as it may, do you see a similar process here? That a truce combined with an opening of the straits is one part, and then the second is everything else? Which, by the way, kind of puts us right back where we were. Obviously, Iran has weakened, but back to, kind of, JCPOA negotiations about everything else.
Dennis Ross
Well, it might be, to be fair, it might be more than JCPOA negotiations, but you’re right. I could see a Phase 2. What would the Phase 2 be? The Phase 2 would be removing the 450, 440 to 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium out of the country. That’s… that is almost certainly a Phase 2. And look, it’s probably done… it’s probably done by the Russians. it will look… I mean, I don’t think President Trump would like the comparison, but it will look an awful lot like the Obama-Putin agreement. negotiated by Kerry and Lavrov on removing the chemical weapons. from Syria, Which, by the way. Remove 90-95% of the chemical weapons, but not all the chemical weapons. And you’d have to wonder whether you’ll end up with something very similar here. Now, to be fair, if you removed 90% of the… of this, that would be a good thing. Because they really don’t have much of an option. Given what they would have to rebuild, and how costly it would be, But we also don’t have an option either on this. when I hear people say. that one of the options is we’re going to send forces in to remove this… this is buried deep underground because we bombed it. It will take… this is not talking about commandos going in. This is… this is like sending the Army Engineering Corps in. Because you’re going to have to go in with all sorts of excavation equipment.
Jen Rubin
Pass.
Dennis Ross
And then you’re gonna have people, you’re gonna have to have people from the IAEA. Who knows something about how you handle, what are big canisters of highly enriched uranium, which If you’re not really careful, this is quite radioactive. So, this is not… this is not a small operation. This is not SEALs going in and… and, you know, and getting Osama bin Laden. This is not the equivalent of that. This is not going and grabbing Maduro. It’s not the equivalent of that. And when people talk about it as if it is, they show they have no idea what is involved.
Jen Rubin
It’s true.
Dennis Ross
But that’s a big… you know, if this ends, and they still have the 440 kilograms, it’s not that they can turn it into a bomb quickly, or actually, 440 kilograms is about 12 bombs. By the way, they have about 180 kilograms of 20% enriched. 20% is also the threshold for highly enriched uranium. You can’t convert it as quickly to… to… Weapon’s grade, but as opposed to 1 week, maybe it takes 3 weeks. So, you talk about 440 being maybe 11, 12 bombs, add another 180, you know, you’re talking about you’re probably up to at least 15 or 16. So… if they retain that, again, it’s not a bomb, because you… you’re gonna have to build a whole infrastructure, rebuild a whole infrastructure. You don’t know what sort of centrifuges they still have. But let’s say they have 200 hidden away in some, you know, warehouse that nobody knows about. Well, then they can enrich it. It doesn’t take long to enrich the 60 to 90. they still don’t have what they would need. They’re going to have to have blast chambers, which are needed to create decompression. You need conventional explosions to create decompression. You need neutron initiators to trigger what can then be, you know, what is it, a critical mass. So there’s… there’s a lot of other things you need, and most of those other things you need have been destroyed. But if they have, what is the hardest thing to acquire? To build a bomb, which is essentially weapons-grade material, at some point they’ll have a bomb.
Jen Rubin
Yes. Yes.
Dennis Ross
So if he ends this war, and they still have this, and there’s no pathway to deal with it, other than say, okay, if we see them, there’s probably two sites where they are. One is Fordeaux, one is probably Ishwahan. If we see any movement towards that. We will… we will bomb as soon as we see that. Now, let’s say you’re the Iranian, say, okay, you know what? We don’t have to do it in the next 3 years anyway. Right? We got enough other things we’re gonna have to do. But we’ll wait for the Democrats to come in. Or we’ll wait for, you know, J.D. Vance to come in. We don’t think he’s an enthusiast for this. First of all, will the Democrats support bombing those sites? I mean, this is actually one area where I would like to see an agreement. Okay, you can be critical of what Trump has done, But the fact is. You know, he has put us in a position where With the right kind of follow-up. They will never have a nuclear weapon. The Democrats would support that. And if you can’t get it out, there should be a commitment. The Iranians need to know if you try to move that, because there is no… listen to Rafael Gosri. the Director General of the IAA. There is no justifiable civilian purpose for 60% enriched uranium. He says it, not me. No justifiable civilian purpose. So if there’s no justifiable civilian purpose, then there ought to be a commitment here. That that… they will not be allowed to access that. By the way, that would help the negotiations even now, if that was clear.
Jen Rubin
Yes. From the Democrats. And as you say, the follow-up is the big if. Let me close with this while we’re talking about scenarios that are and are not realistic. They’ve moved about 50,000 troops. Is this notion of taking Card Island, is that remotely feasible? Would it be 50,000? Would it be a huge-scale battle? What do you make of that? Is that just a typical feint during negotiations?
Dennis Ross
Well, it could be. It could be just a threat to say, look, here’s how much more you have to lose. And Card Island is where 90% of their oil is processed and refined. So you would be taking the most important national asset out of their hands. The 50,000 is not… these are not ground forces. The 50,000 is everything we have out there. Bases, on the ships, it’s everything. you’re probably talking about, you know, of ground forces, but the mix between the Marines and the Brigade of the 82nd Airborne, you’re probably talking about 5,000. Now, they’re not all combat, either. The short answer to your question, could we take Card Island? The answer is absolutely. The question is the cost of holding it? They still have a lot of drones? They still have plenty of artillery? They still have short-range missiles. So, you have to be able to defend it once you’ve taken it. There’s also the risk that if they… it’s… they have been attacking energy facilities in the Gulf. They… by the way, the argument, gee, they didn’t start doing it until after Israel hit South Pars. No, they were doing it before. But to be fair, They haven’t attacked all the targets they could have. And it’s also true that about 90% of what they launch is being intercepted. But it doesn’t take a lot. These are not hardened facilities. You know, these are highly vulnerable facilities, and they could basically decide, if you take out Carg Island, which reduces our ability to export. well, we will reduce the ability of others to export. And then you’re talking about higher than $200 barrel, and you’re talking about if they succeed. Now, maybe they can’t succeed. Here again. you’d have to have a much stronger sense of… what I’ve already described is how much we’ve degraded them. Have we degraded them to the point where they can’t… Fire against those targets, and do we have enough Defense there to prevent them from even succeeding close to 10%. My concern is… 1%, if it hits the target, the right target. Is probably an unacceptable cost. So… There are risks, twofold, in terms of the risk to our forces who are… who you put on the island. And then what they could choose to hit in return. You weigh that against what is their calculus about How risky is this to them? And what is… what are the longer-term consequences for them if they’ve lost Carg Island? So, I do think it’s not… he’s not wrong to threaten it. The problem is, if it’s a bluff, that will be exposed. And then, are we prepared to pay the price of doing it? And I would say… The administration, at this point, I think leave something to be desired In terms of showing that they have thought through all the consequences of their actions. I mean, the most fundamental one is, again. how can you… how can you have gone to this war without a much clearer plan for what you were going to do with the Strait of Hormuz? Why didn’t Secretary Rubio go two to three months ago to Europe and say, we’re trying to resolve this through diplomatic means? We don’t know if we can. Because the fact is, the Iranians have learned nothing from June. June was about showing them the cost of what they’ve done and what they lost because of it, and they’re about rebuilding everything that they lost. They’re, again, giving monies and material to Hezbollah. And to Hamas and to their proxies in Iraq. So they show no sign of learning, no sign of changing. They’re producing… they’re back to producing ballistic missiles at the rate they were before. It’s unacceptable, and at some point. we’re gonna have to deal with this. Now, if we do, and diplomacy fails. then we have to have a plan for what we do in the Strait of Hormuz, and it can’t just be us alone. Nato has minesweepers. We have two, and they’re in Asia. We’re gonna have to have what are real convoys. You know, this means that we’re gonna have to draw on the ships that you have as well. So let’s work out that plan in the event that it comes to war. Instead, on day 12 of this, the President says, why aren’t the Europeans here? Well, A, nobody was there to coordinate with them, and by the way, the person who’s been talking to them, Eldridge Kobe, who is the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, has basically been telling them repeatedly. Your job is to take care of Europe, you don’t have responsibilities outside of Europe. Well, guess what? Then you’re against war, and you say, well, where are you? So… That should have been done by the administration. where the… where I think that’s clearly a failure. The fact is that others do have a stake in this, and they should be prepared to play a role, and the world for too long tolerated. what the Iranians had, and we all adjusted to them putting themselves in a position where they could threaten the global economy, and largely think that this is something they could get away with. So, to be fair to Trump, he is… dealing with a threat in a way that needed to be dealt with, the question was. did you have a well-thought-out strategy? You know, I have this new book out called Statecraft 2.0, The essence of good statecraft is you marry your objectives and your means. That means you think through your objectives, and you think about not only your means, but who’s… who else has means that you can mobilize to help achieve your objective. When you don’t define a clear objective, it’s not a surprise that you haven’t thought through the means that you need. The military has thought through what do they need for their military missions. But, as Klazovic said, you know. War is the extension of politics, perhaps a politics by other means. The military is a tool, it’s not an end in itself. War is, again, a means, it’s not an end in itself. And here, we haven’t seen a definition of the ends in a way that allowed us to mobilize the means that would allow us to achieve those ends.
Jen Rubin
Well, clearly, this administration did not read up on statecraft before they plunged in, and this is perhaps going to be a graduate thesis, bonanza for years to come about, how to prepare and not prepare. Reminded, I think it was, probably, George Schultz, who said, if they’re not there with you on the takeoff, they’re not there on the landing, and it might have been nice to have Congress on board. But at any rate, thank you so much, Dennis. Always a pleasure to talk to you. I’m sure, unfortunately, this will be going on for some time, and we’ll make sure to check back with you. So thanks so much.
Dennis Ross
Jen, I’m glad to be with you anytime, and I’m afraid that you’re right, that we will have more opportunities to talk about this.
