Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. We'll continue our war coverage with this question. Did the US underestimate Iran when President Trump decided to go to war? Articles in The Atlantic and The New York Times today suggest that's the case. 20% of the world's oil now can't get out of the region because Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, and the US hasn't figured out how to open it.

That means higher gas prices, you know this part, here by about 50 cents a gallon so far, but so much more elsewhere around the world, where they're more dependent on Persian Gulf oil. The war is spreading, not ending, at least in that respect, but was this a consequence that the war planners even foresaw? Do they have a solution, or did the US underestimate Iran when President Trump decided to go to war?

What about the drones Iran is using to launch or fend off attacks, even as its more conventional missile capability is being destroyed? Reporting indicates these are similar or the same kinds of drones that Ukraine has used successfully to stop the much bigger Russian army from overwhelming their country. Is that what the US and Israel are in for, for some time to come? Did the US underestimate that?

We'll also discuss in this segment what now looks like President Trump's lies and evasions, I think that's not too strong, about the US being the party that struck that girls' elementary school, killing about 175 people, mostly children, apparently because of faulty intelligence about what that building was. Trump's statements this week are sending mixed messages. Again, this is probably what you have heard in the headlines: mixed messages about how close the US is to ending its operation.

He ignores the fact, like with the examples I just gave, that Iran gets a say, too, like it or not, about when the war ends, and something we've been following here, the constantly changing statements on the goals for the war. This also has a new twist. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and we're going to play a clip here, Rubio gave an emphatic version of the war goals this week that did not include regime change, maybe no surprise there, or human rights for Iranians, maybe no surprise there, but notably to many observers, he didn't even include stopping Iran's nuclear program, a goal that Trump often cites. Here's about a minute of Rubio making it all about one thing.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: The goals of this mission are clear, and it's important to continue to remind the American people of why it is that the greatest military in the history of the world is engaged in this operation. It is to destroy the ability of this regime to launch missiles, both by destroying their missiles and their launchers; destroy the factories that make these missiles; and destroy their Navy.

I think we are all seeing right now the threat that this clerical regime poses to the region and to the world. They are trying to hold the world hostage. They are attacking their neighbors. They are attacking neighboring countries, their energy infrastructure, their civilian population. They're attacking embassies. This is a terrorist government. This is a terroristic regime. We are seeing them conduct terrorism using nation-state elements, using weapons like missiles and one-way attack drones.

The objective of this mission is to destroy their ability to continue to do that. We are well on our way to achieving that objective every single day, with overwhelming force, with overwhelming precision. The military, the United States military, the men and women in uniform, are conducting an extraordinary operation. There are not a lot of cameras down there covering what they're doing as opposed to some of the other images that you may see from some of the cities and capitals nearby, but I want everyone to know your military is getting the job done.

Every single day, this regime in Iran has less missiles, has less launchers, their factories work less, and their Navy is being eviscerated, and the world is going to be a safer and better place when this mission is accomplished.

Brian Lehrer: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, basically, he's saying Iran's missile program, and yes, he headed the Navy as well, but it's related; Iran's missile program is the point of the war, and all those other things he didn't mention. Now, Iran's missile program has long threatened Iran's neighbors. That's very real, but people are asking, "What does it mean for the longer-term security of Americans in the region of Israel, of the Gulf Arab nations, of the Iranian people, if that's all the war turns out to be for?"

With us now, David Graham, staff writer at The Atlantic and author of The Project: How Project 2025 is Reshaping America. His latest article is called "Trump Can't Decide Whether the Iran War Is Still Going On." Mohammed Sergie, editor of the news site Semafor Gulf, he was previously an energy and commodities editor at Bloomberg, covered those and other geoeconomics for The Wall Street Journal, and worked in places including Dubai, Doha, Riyadh, Syria, and someplace called New York City, according to his bio page. David Graham, Mohammed Sergei, welcome back to WNYC.

Mohammed Sergie: Thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Mohammed, can I get your take first on that Marco Rubio clip? Is destroying Iran's missile program, essentially, all that this is about now?

Mohammed Sergie: From the perspective of working in a Gulf country, I live in Dubai. We can't really comment on what the priority list is coming from Washington because it changes all the time, as you just mentioned in your intro. Missiles is something that the Gulf countries have been worried about for a long time, and the closure of Hormuz, which hasn't happened, but has been threatened for really decades, and as you mentioned as well, it is connected to missiles.

They could be missiles or mines. They're basically explosives that are put there to stop traffic. It changes the dynamic of what Gulf countries have been doing for decades, diversifying their economies, taking their surplus oil wealth, putting it into economic development for their people and for expats, right? There's about 30 million people who are not Gulf citizens working there, earning a living, sending money back home. They've been under threat of this for a really long time.

It's probably welcome for them to hear that the missiles has been added to the list or has now maybe topped the list because the nuclear program always seemed to be a little bit distant, but they are not happy to be the recipient of these missiles and these strikes, which have really kind of stopped life in most Gulf countries.

Brian Lehrer: We're going to talk about those missile strikes and the implications, but what about, Mohammed, the implications for anyone if that's all the US and Israel accomplish before going home?

Mohammed Sergie: Yes. The worst-case scenario for the Gulf at this point is a victory being proclaimed or defined by President Trump that isn't necessarily one that addresses the Gulf countries' security concerns. For them, they need to have clear open trade routes going out, secure airspace around them, and some sort of political rapprochement or solution, or acceptance in any type of Iranian regime.

Not saying regime change is what they're calling for, but they don't want to have an angry, besieged regime next door that still has drone capabilities, can put out mines in the Gulf, but they're not threatening Israel or the US anymore, and they're just threatening their neighbors anytime. That's the worst outcome for them.

Brian Lehrer: David, do you have a take on the Rubio clip or its implications if we take missile destruction as the only offensive goal?

David Graham: I think the problem with any statement that any member of the Trump administration makes other than the President is that they don't really speak for the administration. Trump seems to change his mind about what the goals are and where he is in the war on a daily basis. He seems to be conducting this basically of his own avail. I don't know that we can take seriously a statement that comes from any of them, or if we can even take a statement seriously from him, because he changes his mind so often.

Brian Lehrer: Mohammed, back to you and the question of whether the US underestimated Iran in this war. I saw your article right from the beginning, on March 1st, like 24 hours into the war, saying what happens in the Gulf is unpredictable. Do you think that the course of the war so far indicates that the US underestimated Iran?

Mohammed Sergie: Yes and no, I would say to this. It's obvious that somebody somewhere within the massive apparatus of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies knew that there's a game plan of shutting down Hormuz and really causing this havoc to the global economy, but on the other hand, even with the fury that has come out of Iran, the death toll in Gulf countries is relatively low. People dying is terrible, but we're talking about a handful of deaths, maybe I think, or up to 12 or 13 in 10 days or 11 days, with thousands of projectiles, missiles, and drones coming through.

That has been contained, but not predicting that Iran would respond to what it sees as an existential crisis for its regime. Sure, it's a failure of imagination and planning, but to be fair, in my own life, I have never predicted Iran's moves because I guess you have to always think, "What is the maximalist approach?" They tend to take it. Maybe that's how they should've approached it, but then that would curtail them from doing anything because you can.

Brian Lehrer: I saw the Semafor article about trucks being used as an alternative way to get oil out to the world. How much can trucks replace ships?

Mohammed Sergie: Sorry, I wish I was clear on that. This is goods. Oil will come out via two pipelines. This is because Gulf countries who no longer have access to both air freight and Hormuz, the trade that came through Hormuz, they're going to need stuff, right? Kuwait is going to need goods, food, and products, as will Qatar, Bahrain, to some extent, but they can get through Saudi Arabia, and then parts of the UAE. They're going to use the trucks for that stuff.

For oil, you're talking about 50,000 barrels. It's negligible, but there are 2 pipelines, an east-west pipeline from Saudi Arabia that can probably go up to about 5 million barrels a day, and 1 that goes through the UAE for about 2 million. The gap between supply and demand, or at least the lost supply that is coming through Hormuz, you can get it down to about 4 million barrels a day, which is manageable, and you keep prices within a certain range, but you're not going to make up for the 77 million tons per year. You can do the math for how much scope per month. It's about 5 to 6 million barrels a month of those going through from Qatar for liquefied natural gas. The gas is the bigger problem here.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Emerging, not getting as much press, but I've seen that starting to be talked about more that it affects the liquid natural gas exports as well. David, same overarching question of whether the US underestimated Iran in this war. Is the US getting more than it thought it was in for here with the oil disruption, the drone defenses maybe being more effective than was originally accounted for, anything else?

I saw the article by your colleague, Franklin Foer, in The Atlantic called "The Obvious Is Taking Its Revenge on Trump. The reasons other US presidents avoided war with Iran are becoming all too evident." Your take on any of that?

David Graham: Yes, I think it's clear that there are people in the administration who are concerned about these things. We have reporting from The Washington Post, for example, that Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was concerned about the potential for this war dragging on or having unclear purposes. I think for Trump, Trump views this as a kind of simple situation. Iran is a problem. Iran has been a thorn in the side of successive US Administrations. They're a threat. Why don't we just take them out?

As my colleague, Frank Foer, did, that has been the view of successive US presidents as well. They don't particularly like the Iranian regime, but they've restrained themselves because, as Mohammed says, it's very hard to predict how this happens. I think that's what Trump is realizing now. His sort of dawning understanding of the complications also, I think, explains why his messaging about how long the war will go on or what the purposes of the war are keep changing.

Brian Lehrer: David, this relates to your article, Trump Can't Decide Whether the Iran War Is Still Going On. Kind of snarky headline, but the subhead is-

David Graham: [laughs] A little.

Brian Lehrer: -he seems to be at odds with both himself and his Secretary of Defense about the status of the conflict. Maybe the starkest example of that is on Monday, and this is in your article, the President told CBS News that the war is "very complete, pretty much. Very complete, pretty much," but on that same day, the Defense Department posted on X, "We have only just begun to fight," and then asked about it, Trump said, "Well, I think you could say both."

I guess my question for you is, do these public statements, even if contradictory, matter, maybe mixed messages to the public, and therefore to Iran, are part of the strategy to keep them off balance?

David Graham: I think it's possible. I think what I see motivating Trump in some of these cases is concern about the economy and concern about oil prices. His statement that the war was very complete pretty much came right after a spike in oil prices, and it was followed by a drop in oil prices. I think there's a little bit of short-term thinking there. He understands the domestic impact of rising oil prices and of rising gas prices, but we see further examples in this along the same lines.

Last night, Trump said that the Straits of Hormuz are in great shape. This morning, we have Energy Secretary Chris Wright saying that the US is not prepared to escort ships through because it's too dangerous, and he doesn't know when that might be. It might be a matter of weeks. I think some of this is improvisation by the Trump administration, and trying to balance those domestic economic concerns with trying to achieve what they want in the war.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, you can call or text with anything you want to say or ask about the war right now. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text for my guests, David Graham, staff writer at The Atlantic. His latest article is Trump Can't Decide Whether the Iran War Is Still Going On, and Mohammed Sergie, editor of the news site Semafor Gulf. He was previously an energy and commodities editor at Bloomberg, among other things. David Graham and Mohammed Sergie adding perspective to what's going on. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Peter in Tampa, you're on WNYC. Hello, Peter.

Peter: Hello. I think the problem here is the problem of when he's going down that list of all these things that are all very complicated. I'm talking about Rubio or Hegseth. In my mind, I jokingly said, "Why don't you throw in they're eating their pets to the list?" Point being, we're so used to Trump lying. It's the boy who cried wolf. It's like that's the harm of being a leader who lies. I don't know when to say you're telling the truth. How do you know? How do I know that what they're saying is true? I need to, that's why your guest, call in third parties. You tell me what's going on out there. You know?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, I know. Well, David Graham, that of course, is the role of journalists, among others, to try to clarify what's actually going on in the public interest. I'm not sure what question Peter's cri de coeur lands on. Maybe it's, "How do you do that to the best of your ability during the fog of war when all sides are trying to spin disinformation to their advantage?"

David Graham: Yes, that's right. Every war is challenging to cover. There is a lot of confusion. I think there's some particularly tricky elements in this war. One, Iran is a very difficult place for Western reporters to get into and report. Two, the US Defense Department has been shutting out reporters and trying to cut off access, even we see this week, to photographers, to Pete Hegseth's briefings. The administration is not particularly honest.

It's hard to follow what's happening because so many of these things seem to be directed by the White House, sort of at a whim. I think that also connects a little bit to your great point about Trump's unpredictability, keeping the Iranians off balance. That can be a tool for war, but also if you have an opponent who would like to de-escalate or would like to make peace, they have to know that you're a reliable and predictable broker and that they need to know what you want so they can move toward that.

I think that is a potential impediment to ramping anything down. If we don't know what we're going for, I don't know how we're going to get it. If we don't know that, there's no way for the Iranians to try to reach an agreement with Trump.

Brian Lehrer: Mohammed, is there, you can answer the same question as editing Semafor Gulf, how you get to some semblance of the truth when everybody has their agendas and even more intensely in a time of war than at other times, but also the fact, to part of the caller's point, that nuclear weapons, Iran's nuclear program, which supposedly, at least from the US standpoint, different from Israel, different from the Gulf states, what the US's main concern with Iran has been over many years, the fact that that was missing from his list of goals?

Mohammed Sergie: Now, I get it, and I like eating the pets as well, because it comes to the point of "What can you believe?" I can't remember when Trump actually was mentioning it, but I think early on, he asked his aides to come up with a list of terrorist attacks or attacks on the US that Iran has done since 1979, basically. He said that there's something that happened, essentially every week.

I'm sure that there's a lot that's classified, things that we know about. To me, that is the reason why the US went into this war, joined Israel in this war. The war has been going on for a long time, right? The battles between Iran and the US since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 has been constant. For me, when I look at, for instance, Steve Kerr, the coach for Golden State Warriors and NBA champion with the Bulls, the only thing I think about every time I see him, the first thought I have in my head is his father being murdered by, basically, Iranian proxies in Lebanon.

It just goes to the point. He was killed only because he was an American. That's the core issue that I believe the US has. Then, when you extrapolate into the region that Iran has been operating, it's been, most of the time, working against US interests and working against the interests of US allies. The Iranian regime has recently killed tens of thousands of its own people on the streets in January, for protests. They've done it over and over again.

The other aspects of projecting power into the Gulf, projecting power into Syria, Lebanon, obviously, with Israel and in support of its proxies there, it goes beyond centrifuges, but the centrifuges are the big or were the biggest threats, and now the other aspects of it are being dealt with in a military campaign that, as David very clearly states, doesn't have clear objectives or at least stated objectives.

Is this just an exercise in mowing the grass, as they say? Right? We come in. Degrade them as much as possible. They're very weak. Their proxies are on the run. Perhaps a nuclear program has been hit. If it works now, regime topples, you get something better, you get a Venezuela Lite or Plus outcome. Great, and if not, we come back again in four or five years.

Brian Lehrer: Right. That's an interesting description of the bigger picture of what the military goals and uncertainties are. I think Elie in Pomona may have a thought that is in that ballpark. Elie, you're on WNYC. Thank you for calling.

Elie: Thank you for having me. I was just messaging with my aunt in Israel yesterday, and I made a comment that I haven't really been following the news about the war. She's like, "How can you feel for us in Israel if you don't care about the war?" I'm like, "Well, I am conservative-minded, so I'm listening to the more conservative radio, and they're just praising Trump and making him into this huge hero, and I'm not interested in that."

There's a lot that I agree with you on, and the "other side" that there's a lot wrong with the man, but we have to separate that from the good that's being done, and I think everyone agrees that something had to be done with Iran.

Brian Lehrer: Elie, thank you. David, I'll give you this. Also, Mohammed, I'll go to you on this, just because you're in the region. With what Mohammed was just laying out as goals for the war, there may be no unconditional surrender, like Trump was saying the other day, there would be, and then backed off of it. There may be no end to their ability to work on a nuclear program, even if what they have currently has been very disabled in that direction.

There may be no regime change for human rights for the Iranian people, but that the missile program itself and its Navy in that respect has been such not just a threat to the region, but has been actively destabilizing the region, killing people through its various proxies in Yemen and Hezbollah and Hamas, the Gulf states feel victimized by Iran before this war, that maybe in the long run, in the perspective that Elie is laying out, it's still worth it to destroy the missile program and it's a greater good for the world? Do you kick that around in the offices of The Atlantic, or how do you deal with that possibility, that that's the way to look at the biggest possible picture here?

David Graham: I would sort of amend a little bit what Elie said, which is that everyone agrees that Iran is a problem and a serious geopolitical problem. Whether something needs to be done, I think, is an open question. What? The idea that we're just going to do something for the sake of doing it, I think, is a little bit worrisome. Trump had this opportunity and talked about taking action while there were major protests going on in Iran and protesters being slaughtered.

Didn't act then, which sort of created an urgency, so he moved on from that. The state of Iran's nuclear program is disputed, and intelligence is a little bit hard. It doesn't always agree. I think the question is whether, in fact, what's going to happen will make things better. We've certainly seen plenty of American interventions, whether that is in Iraq or in Libya or in Afghanistan, where there has been some change, but not necessarily a change that is obviously better in the long run.

I think part of the problem here is that Americans are willing to support foreign intervention, we have seen, but they like to know what the purpose is, and I don't see the administration doing that. I see Republican politicians saying that Americans will need to make sacrifices, whether that's in the form of service members going overseas or just paying more for gas at the pump, but I haven't seen an articulation of what it is that Americans are going to gain from that. I think that's why opinion polling has been very weak for this war, in contrast to previous ones.

Brian Lehrer: Mohammed, same question, and not just in the US and what's in it for Americans context, but for the region.

Mohammed Sergie: Yes. I agree with David. What's in it for Americans? Probably nothing much in the near term. If you want to believe there's some ideas of 4D chess being played vis-à-vis China, which, given I think the lack of foresight on what Iran's response would be, I can't imagine that that's the game that's being played, but it's really a question of attacking an enemy while they're down.

It seems to be that that's the calculus that was made, and everything else in terms of selling it to the American people and figuring out when to stop shooting and all of the domestic aspects of it came after. I don't have reporting on this, but that's how it seems like it unfolded. From the Gulf's perspective and the Middle East's perspective, the majority of people there don't have a lot of empathy for the Iranian regime.

They've felt attacked by them, and they've been attacked by them for a very long time, but they also see this as another Israeli push to dominate the region and to create what Prime Minister Netanyahu has said, the new Middle East, which is one way or another subservient to their interests, and that's something that they are also concerned about. You're seeing some backlash among Gulf leaders on that or, well, Gulf business people, and some former officials.

Brian Lehrer: I think we have a caller on that track as well. Derek in Jersey City, you're on WNYC. Hello, Derek, thank you for calling.

Derek: Brian, thanks so much for taking my call. I am just gutted and horrified that we took part in the vaporization of 160 schoolgirls, clearly following the Israeli special, of murdering children. I think we really need to reconsider not just our politicians, but I also think, the media, and as individuals, we need to search in our heart, is our alliance with Israel something that is helping our country or hurting it?

We've seen what they've been willing to do in Gaza. We've seen them now in the last few days bombing refugee tents in Lebanon. It's so deeply gutting. I'm ashamed to be an American, and I'm ashamed of our association. This war makes no sense, but if you look at the polling in Israel, 82% of them supported it because they see us as the weapon to have dominance in the region.

I really think on Jake Tapper's show the other night on CNN, to explain the Iranian perspective, he had two former IDF agents born in the US with American accents, and surprise, surprise, what was their perspective? "Oh, by and large, the vast, vast majority of Iranians support this war." How often are we just letting these Israeli perspectives dominate not only our policy, but what we think is the truth? I'm ashamed to be an American, and I appreciate all of your reporting. Have a good day.

Brian Lehrer: Derek, thank you for your call. I know, to be fair, I've seen on CNN, Arab perspectives, Iranian perspectives, not just Israeli perspectives, on what Iran is up to, and also obviously, people in Israel and who support Israel would take major exception to your description of killing children as an Israeli specialty. David, to a point, I guess his ultimate point regarding the United States' relationship with Israel, how much did Israel talk the United States into this war?

There's been reporting that Lindsey Graham, for example, this was in The Wall Street Journal, Senator Lindsey Graham, who wanted the war against Iran, coached Netanyahu on how to goad Trump into it. The Wall Street Journal's word, "goad," Trump into it. There's been reporting that Israel-- I think this is one of the claims of the US was that Israel was going to launch some version of this war anyway, putting US targets at risk in the region, so the United States decided to go all in, but how can we pick apart US interests from simply backing up Israel, and whether that's in the US interest?

David Graham: Yes, we also saw Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, saying that he said we knew there was going to be an Israeli action and sort of using that as a reason for this. I think it's a very reciprocal relationship, as that reporting about Lindsey Graham and Netanyahu suggests. Both the US and Israel have reasons for opposing Iran. Trump, I think, does not need a lot of urging to want to take on Iran.

His mindset on this, I think, runs back to 1979. He's had animosity towards Iran for a long time. Even as we saw in the earlier bombing campaign, it doesn't take a lot to get him to that point. I think there are real questions about the US Relationship with Israel. We see in American opinion polling a turn against Israel. We see that even on the MAGA, right? Concerns about being led by Israel, which I think tend to shade into anti-Semitism.

There's a real question, but I think on Iran, from the point of view of the US and Iran, both countries have an incentive to want to weaken the Iranian state. I'm not sure anyone is leading anyone on this particular operation.

Brian Lehrer: Mohammed, to one of the callers, one of the things the caller was skeptical about, and of course, he was, to David's point just now, trying to put this in the frame of, "Oh, Israel controls everything," but the caller was skeptical about the claim he says he saw on CNN that 80% of Iranians are in favor of this war. For you, who's the editor of Semafor Gulf, and you're based in the region, how true or false would you say that claim is?

Mohammed Sergie: 80%? Well, there's no polling, so you can't tell what it is, but generally, people don't like to see their country being hit. I think the US has a figure out. 5,000 targets have been shot in the last 10 days or 12 days or so. Very hard to predict that, but I'd say a large portion of the Iranian population does not like their regime, and they've shown it with a lot of bravery, but they've also not taken up arms against this regime.

The country of my origin, where my parents are from, is Syria. The Syrian people were forced to fight and extract and militarily defeat their regime that was backed by Iran, and it cost them about a million people dead, 200,000 people killed in extermination camps. The price is very, very high to take out these types of governments, and they have been throughout history. I can understand why they wouldn't want to rise up in that way. Yes, very hard to come up with a figure, though.

Brian Lehrer: When we come back from a break, we're going to go more explicitly to the issue of what we know now about the strike on that girls' elementary school, as we continue with David Graham from The Atlantic and Mohammad Sergie from Semafor Gulf. Stay with us.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC as we continue to talk about the war with Mohammad Sergie from Semafor Gulf and David Graham from The Atlantic, and with you. I want to talk explicitly about the human cost of the war. The Iranian regime may deserve everything it's getting for its 47 years of menacing many other countries and all the deaths you can attribute to that, but the estimated death toll in the war is around 1,200 people. That's the figure we keep hearing, most of them said to be Iranian civilians, and that's not to devalue the American and Israeli and Gulf state lives also being lost, but most have been Iranian civilians according to most reporting, including the estimated 175 people, mostly children, in that Tomahawk missile strike on Day 1.

Have either of you reported on how this war fits into just war theory, or not, and how government should calculate the moral equation of when a war is moral, even if the enemy is evil and the aims are legitimate, if so many innocent civilians will die in the course of it? That's certainly been a major question for Israel in Gaza, and here it is again. I don't see much coverage that even asks the question. David, do they even discuss this when deciding on whether to undertake such a thing?

David Graham: I haven't reported deeply on the specifics of law of war. I do think these kinds of equations are something that the Trump administration handles in a very strange way. On the one hand, they make an argument that attacking Iran is a moral imperative, and on the other hand, they forswear any discussion of morality, for example, in rules of engagement. This is a particular hang-up for Pete Hegseth, who seems to have come out of his experience serving in the military with a real anger about any kind of moral calculations. I think there is a gap there in how the administration talks about it.

Brian Lehrer: On that, NPR reported this morning that Hegseth defunded the Office of Civilian Casualties, or it was something with a title, something like that, a program where they specifically work to avoid civilian casualties in war, and NPR reported that they defunded that program by 90%.

David Graham: Yes, that's right. I think my colleague Missy Ryan has reported on this, too, the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, which has been very effective in reducing civilian casualties. We've seen preliminary reporting on the strike on the girls' school in Manab, a suggestion that there was faulty intelligence. We don't know why that happened or why updated information was not given, but one reason might be a little bit of sloppiness around rules of engagement and around civilian casualties, as well as a sloppiness about what the aims of the war are as well.

Brian Lehrer: NPR has done some of the essential reporting on the Tomahawk missile school strike and on Trump trying not to take responsibility for what he almost certainly has known was a US strike. Here are a few clips that make the point. Even though it's generally known that the US has Tomahawk missiles and Iran does not, Trump said this last Friday. You'll hear Pete Hegseth here, too, trying not to repeat the obvious, false statement, but still somehow back up the President.

President Trump: Based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran.

Reporter: Is that true, Mr. Hegseth? It was Iran who did that?

Pete Hegseth: We're certainly investigating.

Reporter: Still investigating.

Pete Hegseth: But the only side that targets civilians is Iran.

Brian Lehrer: He says the only side that targets civilians is Iran. He did not repeat what Trump said, that he believed Iran did this, because he probably didn't believe that at that time. Here's Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine last Monday, indicating it was the US that used Tomahawk missiles at the start of the war on the day and in the area of Southern Iran, where the school was hit

Dan Caine: First shooters at sea were Tomahawks unleashed by the United States Navy closed in on Iranian naval forces and began to conduct strikes across the southern flank in Iran.

Brian Lehrer: Here's Trump on Monday of this week, still trying to deflect.

President Trump: Tomahawks are used by others, as you know.

Brian Lehrer: All the reporting from so many news organizations indicates nobody believes Iran has them. Finally, here's Democratic Senator Chris Murphy on Morning Edition today, drawing attention to all this and the possible longer-term implications as he sees them.

Senator Chris Murphy: Let's just not gloss over the fact that the President knew that we struck this site. It was obvious from the first minute, and has been lying about it. In fact, at some point said that maybe it was Iran that somehow got their hands on a Tomahawk missile and fired it on their own school. It's not a small thing that the President lies to us on a regular basis, but this is why air campaigns don't work, because you end up killing a lot of civilians.

You harden the population. They end up electing or choosing hardline leadership, and ultimately, that leadership is worse for the people of that country in the long run and for US national security interests. It's a lesson we learned, should have learned in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we're refusing to learn it again.

Brian Lehrer: Mohammed, it's reported as faulty intelligence. This is the most specific reporting that I've seen, faulty intelligence about what that building was, because it used to be part of the naval installation that's right there, then it changed to a school adjacent to the naval base, but the US didn't know that. What's the right thing to do, even assuming the strike was not targeting the children on purpose?

Mohammed Sergie: Well, you mentioned earlier just war theory, and these are things that I studied in university, and then you go out to the world, and you see wars, and there is maybe a just war out there, but they're all prosecuted with incredible amounts of war crimes. When you look at something like this, I think the difference that a country like the United States has with all of its flaws and all of its divisions is that there is a mechanism to review, to hold people to account.

Even if the President is giving, really, a distasteful story here of where the Tomahawk came from, it seems eventually the US will own up to this, I believe, or I could be wrong, but even if the government doesn't own up to it, it's quite obvious that in the realm of public opinion, that has already happened. Generally, people believe that this was an error in a strike.

If they come out and say it's an error, then there is a different mechanism in terms of compensation for the families and so on, but when you look at the graves that have been dug for these kids, that's the cost, and it's the same cost. It doesn't really matter who the leadership of either country are. It's normal people that pay for it, and that's the tragedy of these types of wars.

Brian Lehrer: David, last question in this segment. What Mohammad just said is the first reference I've heard to anybody suggesting that there should be some kind of compensation. Of course, you can't bring back those dead kids, but some kind of monetary compensation to the families at least. A listener writes, on the Iranian girls' school, "What kind of leader does not take responsibility for such a tragic error and express condolences and apologies? Why are Congress and others not speaking out?"

My question for you is, because obviously Democrats are speaking out about this, are Republicans in Congress doing what the listener who sent the text says, taking responsibility even in the frame of what the listener writes, is a tragic error, an error, not something they did on purpose with those children in mind, and express condolences and apologies, or maybe considering some kind of recompense? You're a political reporter. Are you hearing it?

David Graham: I am not hearing that anywhere, and I'm not hearing any of that kind of move to responsibility by Republicans in Congress overall, even to the point of defeating resolutions that would have given Congress a say in the war. I think it's not something that Republicans in Congress are interested in right now.

Brian Lehrer: David Graham, staff writer at The Atlantic. His latest article is called Trump Can't Decide Whether the Iran War Is Still Going On, and Mohammad Sergie, editor of the news site Semafor Gulf, thank you both very much for joining us.

Mohammed Sergie: Thank you.

David Graham: Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We move away from the war, but much more to come.

 

Copyright © 2026 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.