One of the most striking things about the ongoing conflict in Iran is how leading experts accurately predicted Tehran’s response to a U.S. attack, from shutting down the Strait of Hormuz to attacking U.S. bases in the region. Why didn’t U.S. President Donald Trump heed their advice? One can only surmise, but one reason could be that his administration had in fact fired several of the specialists who had studied Iran’s politics and history.

One of those experts is Nate Swanson, a career diplomat who served under multiple Democratic and Republican administrations over more than two decades. Swanson was a director for Iran at the National Security Council in the Biden White House. He then served as a member of the Iran negotiating team in Trump’s second term before he was purged from government, along with many other diplomats.

One of the most striking things about the ongoing conflict in Iran is how leading experts accurately predicted Tehran’s response to a U.S. attack, from shutting down the Strait of Hormuz to attacking U.S. bases in the region. Why didn’t U.S. President Donald Trump heed their advice? One can only surmise, but one reason could be that his administration had in fact fired several of the specialists who had studied Iran’s politics and history.

One of those experts is Nate Swanson, a career diplomat who served under multiple Democratic and Republican administrations over more than two decades. Swanson was a director for Iran at the National Security Council in the Biden White House. He then served as a member of the Iran negotiating team in Trump’s second term before he was purged from government, along with many other diplomats.

Out of office, Swanson has publicly predicted Iran’s likely response to an attack and also how Tehran might eventually overplay its hand. On the latest episode of FP Live, I spoke with him to get his sense of where things might be heading next. We discussed why the memorandum of understanding failed, Trump’s unique management style, and why American policymakers have struggled to meet their goals in the Middle East. Subscribers can watch the full discussion in the video box atop this page. Readers can also set the free FP Live podcast to download on their favorite audio platform. What follows here is a lightly edited and condensed transcript of our conversation.

Ravi Agrawal: So Nate, take us back to when we had a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Iran and the United States. We can all agree that that was a flawed document, but it stopped the fighting. I want to understand how we got from there to here. What happened?

Nate Swanson: It’s a great question. As you said, this was a very flawed MOU. But it was the best-case scenario because the war had proven that both sides were basically in a stalemate and with diminishing returns. So, the document was flawed, but it would beat the alternative.

What’s happened, though, from the signing of the MOU to where we are now, is that both sides view the document as a surrender: Each side thinks the other is surrendering. The U.S., with all of its overwhelming military strength, believes that Iran should ultimately capitulate to their demands, whereas Iran feels like they won the war. They have the Strait of Hormuz, this new leverage they didn’t have before; they put tangible costs on the U.S., and more importantly, on the global economy. So these mindsets coming into the talks were very different and were looking past each other. Add those two........

© Foreign Policy