On February 28, 2026, the U.S. launched a series of aerial and missile attacks on Iran, with overwhelming battlefield success, destroying military installations, eliminating Iranian air defenses, and killing the regime’s leader. More than two weeks later, the campaign continues, with little clarity on how the conflict will end. Oil and gasoline prices have jumped, and the Iranian government appears determined to keep fighting, in spite of the frequent bombings.
According to political science professor Andrew Kydd, the U.S. needs to find a way to translate its tactical superiority into achieving political goals, or the war will not be successful.
On the March 17 episode of the UW Now Live, Kydd and three other UW political scientists — Steven Brooke, Yoshiko Herrera, and Jon Pevehouse — will join host Mike Knetter for a discussion of the conflict in Iran and its consequences.
My Main Area of Research Is:
The kind of research I do typically involves game theory, which is the mathematical modeling technique used to study strategic interaction, especially in economics and political science, to answer questions like, “If the other side does this, then what would the rational response to that be?” I don’t really have a special regional focus or expertise. I’m more focused on specific topics, such as the origins and conclusion of wars wherever they might be.
Tonight on the UW Now Live, I’ll Talk About:
I plan to talk about the underlying, long-term causes of the current war. Ever since 9/11, the United States has been concerned about the possibility that a state that is deeply hostile to the U.S. and sponsors terrorist groups could acquire nuclear weapons. We attacked Iraq in 2003 because of this fear and are attacking Iran now because of it. It may or may not be a wise decision, and there are a host of immediate factors that precipitated the war at this point rather than earlier or later, but I think that’s the underlying cause.
The One Thing I Want Viewers to Remember Is:
The war may be tactically successful, but it needs to be judged on larger political criteria. Will it achieve results that are worth the costs? It is degrading Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. But attacks on the regime may be fruitless if the regime survives, which seems likely. Even if the regime falls, the end result could be anarchy rather than a transition to democracy. There are economic and human costs to be considered as well. Last but not least, by not consulting Congress or the UN, the administration has also further weakened both international and domestic law as it pertains to armed conflict.
To Get Smart Fast, See:
