On April 17th, the University of Chicago was once again privileged to host Obama’s former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R) as part of a continuing Hagel Lecture Series and Biden’s former deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell (D) on the continuing war in Iran, moderated by Professor Robert Pape. Due to Iran’s geopolitical importance in the Strait of Hormuz, its remaining stockpiles of enriched uranium, and Pape’s daring proclamation of Iran being the 4th center of global power, it was fitting that this year’s theme focused squarely on pressing current events, being aptly titled, “America’s Role in Asia in the Context of War with Iran.”
CPOST director Pape set the scene of the discussion with a simple question: “Where are we now?” Pape had his team work to ensure that the data used during the lecture series was up to date within a margin of hours. With the most up-to-date knowledge, Hagel and Campbell painted a picture marked with a stark pessimism. Campbell warned those who have attempted to frame the current situation in Iran as being in its final stages, instead arguing that the public must resist the temptation to become overly optimistic anytime they see a positive indication of the end of the conflict drawing near. Using sobering terms, Campbell called the conflict a “full-fledged war that has global implications” and spreads far beyond gas pumps, making its effects far more extreme than the oil supply problems that plagued the Nixon and Carter administrations. Hagel articulated a similar message but differed slightly by broadening it to state his belief that the war in Iran will be the most defining moment for America since World War II.
Professor Pape then asked the guests if the United States could realistically pivot its geopolitical focus from the Middle East towards Asia—specifically to counter Chinese expansion—to which Campbell predicted that U.S. military forces would likely remain semi-permanently in the Middle East. Campbell also highlighted the lack of allied coordination the United States could muster to support its efforts and heavily criticized President Trump for indicating that he would be joined by other nations, only “to be followed by just deafening silence.” Campbell mentioned how discussions between European diplomats and American representatives had descended into our European allies “just [screaming] at us about how angry they are.” He was quick to remind the crowd that “everything that the United States has ever done of consequence on a global stage until today, we have done with Europe.”
Following President Trump’s 2025 bombings of the Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz nuclear facilities in Iran, which destroyed portions of enriched nuclear material, Campbell asserted that Iran still maintains the capacity to make more enriched uranium, but the calculus has changed. Due to Iran’s new leader personally witnessing the assassination of his father, mother, brother, wife, and one of his sons, Campbell asserted that Iran’s new leadership would not be open-minded to work closely with the U.S. in nuclear weapons negotiations. Additionally, Campbell expanded the threat he saw of American intervention, inspiring accelerated nuclear proliferation to lands outside of the conflict-drenched Middle East, highlighting that “there are ten countries in Asia that have the capability to build nuclear weapons.” Campbell warned that in a new era of uncertainty brought by the U.S., many could “rethink their options.”
Hagel conveyed his vocal frustration with the dissolution of the 2015 nuclear deal brought about by the Obama Administration. He pointed out how the deal allowed, for the first time, American inspectors to physically work in Iran alongside IAEA inspectors. Hagel mentioned how someone within his team had previously criticized the deal due to the short-termism of its 13-15 arrangement. Hagel recounted shooting back to that person, “If you’re so damn smart, you tell me what the hell the world looks like in 15 years. So I’ll take the 15 years of peace.” Hagel also highlighted the fact that there are currently nine nations with nuclear weapons, “and I would say that all of them are not particularly responsible.”
While there was broad pessimism conveyed by Hagel and Campbell about what the future of the war in Iran would hold, they both chose to end their discussion on a quite positive note. Hagel asserted that “this country has always had the unique ability to self-correct, ” even citing the end of the Vietnam War as an unexpected proof of reconciliation. His optimism was also rooted not in blind faith, but in America’s constitutional history, with the bipartisan ratification of 27 amendments showing that America could continue to strive towards perfection with time. In a more personal reflection, Campbell noted that American history has always been defined in struggle, and that “it is upon us now to fight and struggle to try to build that better world.”
Their Predictions and Immediate Outcomes:
Campbell cautioned against premature celebration, himself disclosing, “I have to remind myself, I’m an international specialist. I shouldn’t fall for this. But I fell for the tweet.” Since the lecture series approximately 2 weeks ago, the flurries of optimistic tweets by President Trump have not amounted to a dramatic change in the state of the war. For example, President Trump recently posted on April 28th that “Iran has just informed us that they are in a ‘State of Collapse.’ They want us to ‘Open the Hormuz Strait.’” However, Trump then proceeded to reject a nuclear deal proposed by Iran, which would reopen the Strait but postpone nuclear talks until after the war was resolved. Hagel’s and Campbell’s predictions of the Iran war being further defined by prolonged diplomatic entanglements are bearing out.
On the ally front, Campbell warned that America rebuilding its broken trust with its allies would not be gracious; they would “lecture us for hours about how we’ve let them down.” However, it appears that President Trump has made significant strides in rekindling shared trust with European allies, most notably through his invitation of King Charles III to the White House on April 28th-29th. However, it must be pointed out that the British monarch has no real substantive power, and the results of the visit were mostly ceremonial and rooted in a uniquely shared American-British cultural heritage. A state dinner with a monarch is the beginning of a long process of rebuilding relationships in Washington.