"There is a possibility of Israel using nuclear weapons"
The United States is repeating its mistakes with Iraq and Afghanistan in the war with Iran, veteran and former captain of the US Marine Corps Matthew Ho said in an interview with Izvestia. According to him, the Trump administration and NATO allies underestimated Tehran's resilience, which could lead to a protracted multi-year conflict. Iran has already effectively blocked the Strait of Hormuz, which in the long run means a global energy crisis and a global recession. The Persian Gulf countries may abandon American bases by creating their own alliance or even getting closer to Russia and China, according to a former State Department and Pentagon official. About why the American strategy in the Middle East is doomed to failure — in an exclusive interview with Matthew Ho "Izvestia".
"Since 1979, there has been a kind of obsession with Iran in the United States"
— In 2003, the United States and the coalition invaded Iraq because of the alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by the Hussein regime, but this has never been confirmed. Now Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are making similar statements about Iran. Is history repeating itself?
— The parallels are certainly obvious. This is a war of choice, an illegal war built on lies. The war is unfair and unnecessary, with poorly thought-out plans, as well as an uncertain strategy or based on extremely optimistic assumptions.
Former Captain of the United States Marine Corps Matthew Ho
In the case of the Iraq war in 2003 and the current war with Iran, the administration believed that using military force quickly enough would cause the regime to collapse or be overthrown by the people, and then everything would go by itself. But we saw in Iraq and just a week ago in Iran that it doesn't work that way.
However, there are significant differences. Perhaps the most important of them is that in 2003, the US administration enjoyed public support. When George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, more than 70% of Americans supported him. As the operation progressed, this number approached 80%. Only one in four Americans supports Trump's current war. This idea is already less popular than the Vietnam War at its end. It's amazing how they started the war with virtually no public support.
— What other, perhaps less obvious reasons did the White House use to launch military operations against Iran?
— Talking about weapons of mass destruction or a nuclear program is just a duck. Just like in 2003, when many bystanders and people who visited Iraq claimed that the Iraqis did not have WMD, we are seeing the same thing now. The situation is even more obvious: the American intelligence community has been saying for more than 20 years that the Iranians do not have a nuclear weapons program. There was Khamenei, who for decades clearly stated that Iran would not possess nuclear weapons. There was an Iranian government that was willing to negotiate with the Americans even after they were attacked by Israel last year.
There are other, more real reasons. Of course, this is a factor in Israel's role in US foreign policy, and purely American interests are also important. First, it is the inertia of the American military-industrial complex. Secondly, the influence of the fossil fuel industry in the United States (the growth of oil and gas production in the United States allows Washington to tighten sanctions against Tehran without fear of a critical shortage in the global market). Thirdly, the influence of the Iranian lobby in exile, which contains very high—ranking and influential people such as Rudy Giuliani or John Bolton, people with access to key figures in the government.
Since 1979, there has been a kind of obsession with Iran in the United States, especially in the foreign policy establishment. They see him as America's main opponent. The US doctrine in the Middle East, which characterizes Iran as an aggressor that must be confronted, is supported by almost all elements of the foreign policy apparatus, with the exception of a small number of dissidents like me.
Those in power have decided that this is in the interests of the United States. However, this is certainly not in the interests of the American people. And, of course, the ego factor of Donald Trump cannot be discounted. This is constantly evident in his statements: he says that he will be the first American president to challenge Iran and ensure the security of the United States, and so on. His personal ambitions play a huge role. However, there are plenty of institutions and individuals in Washington who are eager for this war, not to mention Israel's role in shaping American foreign policy.
"They always wanted to get involved in this war, they were just waiting for the right reason"
— The only time Article 5 of the NATO Charter was invoked was during the intervention in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. After Iran's attacks on the facilities of the alliance members, its use was allowed by Secretary General Mark Rutte. Is it possible? Where are these red lines for NATO?
— Article 5 is a rather ambiguous thing. It is not strictly mandatory, it is voluntary. Many mistakenly believe that its activation is an automatic vote for the entry of the entire alliance into the war. No, this is just a recognition of the fact of an attack on one of the member states, giving other NATO countries the opportunity to provide assistance.
It seems to me that what is happening now is that the British, French and Germans are interpreting the attack on their facilities in their favor. It is advantageous for them to declare that they were treacherously attacked, because they believe in the necessity of this war. We constantly hear similar statements from their foreign ministries and leaders. For example, Friedrich Merz bluntly said in 2025 that Israel was doing Europe's "dirty work" by bombing Iran.
It is also worth recalling the role of the "Eurotroika" (Britain, France and Germany) in the return of sanctions against Iran provided for in the 2015 nuclear deal, which proved to be devastating. They were the main reason for the collapse of the Iranian currency at the end of the year, which provoked protests and subsequent violence. And now the excuse is being used — no matter how empty and superficial it may be — that the United States is doing all this for the sake of "liberating the Iranian people."
Mark Rutte's statement confirms what we already knew: they always wanted to get involved in this war, just waiting for the right reason. Although European countries should be careful: their governments have low ratings, the economy and infrastructure are in decline. This war is even more unpopular among their population. The idea of joining it looks crazy, but you need to understand the logic of the Eurotroika: This is the legacy of imperial ambitions and the desire to remain significant within the "American empire." And so they hope that this war will be able to distract the attention of citizens from all the problems inside their countries. Therefore, Macron, Merz, and Starmer are ready to make this mistake, to make this terrible choice because of institutional or imperial considerations.
French President Emmanuel Macron talks with military personnel at the Paphos military Airport during his visit to Cyprus to demonstrate France's solidarity after the recent drone attacks amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran.
— What are the chances that the United States will use more serious weapons in the conflict with Iran, such as nuclear weapons?
— I don't think the Americans will do that. It's just not realistic. There is a small but highly debated possibility of Israel using nuclear weapons. They have hundreds of nuclear warheads and the doctrine of using such weapons in the event of a threat to the existence of the State or mass deaths of the population. Many people have probably heard of the so-called Samson variant.
It means "To die with the Philistines" — a reference to the biblical story about Judge Samson, who, being blinded and captured, brought down the temple of the Philistines, destroying himself and his enemies.
One can imagine a scenario in which the US and Israel's missile defense stocks run out, and Iran gains an advantage in drones and missiles and can attack the Jewish state without fear of a response. In such an existential situation, it could use nuclear weapons against Iran.
But there is another frightening aspect of the Israeli doctrine, the Dahiya doctrine, which aims to inflict maximum damage on the civilian population in order to force the enemy to surrender by terror. We have seen this in Gaza in recent years. So the question arises: why should we think that the Israelis don't use nuclear weapons if they consider it beneficial for themselves?
"There is a risk of a repeat of the scenario in Afghanistan"
— The war in Afghanistan lasted almost 10 years. Could the current fighting in the Middle East drag on for years? Will there be a "second Afghanistan"?
— The idea that war can be completely controlled is an illusion. Remember the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. Soviet troops entered there in 1979, and a couple of months later the Politburo was already looking at each other in disbelief: "How did this happen?" The United States has the same thing.
Consequences of the strike on Tehran
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan... Even the wars in Libya and Syria were not conceived as long-term bloody civil conflicts. The plan was simple: a quick regime change, and the country would move on.
The risk of a repeat of this scenario in Iran is high, especially when arrogant, historical-memory-deprived leaders with megalomania and lack of self-criticism are in power in the United States. They believe that the laws of history do not apply to them.
Can they get into a long war like their predecessors? Quite. The only thing is, unlike Bush Jr., Trump may change his mind. On the one hand, it's bad to have a president without principles and an inner compass, but on the other hand, it gives hope.
Bush was not going to change course on Iraq even in 2006, when the elections became a de facto referendum against the war and the Republicans lost control of Congress. He just sent more troops to Iraq. Trump is a man of mood. Although it is doubtful to build hopes that he will "come to his senses", given that his entourage is unlikely to give him such recommendations and provide objective information.
— After the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, the Taliban came to power, which called into question the results of a 10-year military campaign. What unforeseen consequences can the current operation lead to?
— War is always a hotbed of unforeseen consequences. We are already seeing them: the Gulf states, which have trillions of dollars invested in the United States, are starting to review their investments.
What will the strikes on their territory and the chaos in the economy lead to? To the realization that the US and Israel are just using them to their advantage. This could change the entire geopolitics of the region: the Gulf states could abandon American bases, create their own alliance, or even move closer to Russia and China.
Now the Iranians are successfully implementing a strategy to expand the conflict to the entire region, dealing a blow to the global economy. This could escalate into a full-fledged regional war or even a global conflict, although the latter is less likely. In any case, this could be the greatest disaster for the Middle East in decades.
The plan of the Americans and Israelis seems to be to provoke a civil war in Iran. Do they want to turn Iran into a Syria like 12-13 years ago? As our baseball player Yogi Berra used to say, "it's hard to predict, especially the future." But if there are the same people in the arena as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen over the past 35 years, then why should the result in Iran be different?
We can expect years of destruction of not only military, but also civilian targets throughout the region, a protracted global energy crisis and a global recession. If the inflation of the COVID era seemed terrible to you, imagine the Strait of Hormuz closed for a month. What if the United States does something stupid and introduces ground troops there? Iran is three to four times the size of Iraq in area and twice as large in population. It will be a disaster that will make Vietnam and Afghanistan seem like successes.
— The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz really poses the greatest danger to the economy. How difficult is it to conduct military operations there? Is it realistic to ensure the safety of ships passing through it?
— It will be incredibly difficult for the American navy. Now the US policy is such that they are terrified of losses. For the past 13 years, the US administration has been trying to avoid the deaths of American soldiers. Instead, they use proxy forces, precision weapons, drones, or mercenaries, whose losses can be hidden, all so that the average person does not see the real cost of war.
But if they bring ships into the Persian Gulf to open the strait, they will be trapped. The straits are so narrow that the Americans simply won't have time to react to Iranian drones and anti-ship missiles.
Another important point: both Biden and Trump tried to recapture the Red Sea from the Houthis, and both failed. They had to agree to a truce to "save face" and retreat. If they failed to deal with the Houthis, how are they going to deal with the Iranians, whose potential is several orders of magnitude higher?
Even if they temporarily clear the strait at the cost of huge losses, will insurance companies want to risk the vessels? Traffic in the Red Sea has halved, even though the Houthis haven't shot at anyone in months. Until Iran says, "We're not attacking anymore," no one will go there, no matter what Donald Trump promises.
"Our system protects the interests of Israel, the military-industrial complex and the oil industry, not ordinary Americans"
— Recently, Marine Corps veteran Brian McGinnis was expelled from a hearing in the US Senate after he stated that "no one wants to fight for Israel." What do Iraq and Afghanistan veterans think about military operations in Iran?
— Brian McGinnis is my friend. We live a few miles apart. His wife and children are Palestinians. It's personal to him. What is happening in Gaza is what is happening to his family. The case of Brian caused a huge response. People see the true face of the system: a senator is ready to break a veteran's arm for the truth. Our system protects the interests of Israel, the military-industrial complex, and the oil industry, not ordinary Americans. They're afraid of veterans telling the truth.
There are 2.7 million of us veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Polls show that more than 70% of us consider those wars to be a mistake that was not worth the sacrifices. We see history repeating itself. We were in an unfair, illegal war built on lies, and we don't want that to happen again.
The main difference from 2003 is access to information. People no longer believe the corporate media, which is dancing to the tune of the government. Therefore, then 70% expressed support, and now only one in four.
In addition, there are a lot of problems in the United States itself: raids on immigrants, during which the authorities beat and arrest even US citizens; an economy where 60% of the population lives from paycheck to paycheck. Education and medicine are deteriorating. The Epstein case showed Americans that there are two Americas: one for rich oligarchs and elites, and the other for everyone else.
— We see that the operation against Iran has obviously stalled. What strategic mistakes did the White House make?
— The main mistake is misunderstanding the enemy, the people and the structure of the Iranian government, which has been preparing for this war for decades. American presidents make the same mistake: they don't believe when their opponents tell the truth. When the Iranians explain that they do not have a nuclear program, the United States tries to convince them otherwise, which reaches the point of absurdity. When they declare that they will not give up and that killing the leaders will not destroy their state apparatus, this is also true.
But most importantly, the United States underestimated the strength of the spirit of the Iranian people. The Trump administration thought it could do in Iran what it did in Venezuela. My biggest fear was that success with Nicolas Maduro would give the Americans excessive confidence in their own invincibility.
This week, we saw millions of Iranians gather to commemorate the 168 schoolgirls killed by American or Israeli bombs. They went out into the open sky, teeming with drones and missiles, not only to mourn, but also to show their contempt and defiance of the United States and Israel. The leaders in Washington simply cannot understand this unity and steadfastness of the Iranian people.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
