NPR’s Scott Simon talks with Michael Wahid Hanna of the International Crisis Group about how the spillover of war between Iran, Israel and the US could change regional dynamics to other countries.
Scott Simon, Host:
A week has passed since America and Israel started war on Iran. At least nine other countries are now embroiled in the conflict as Iran retaliates against oil and gas installations and US bases and embassies. Israel bombed locations in Lebanon. Hezbollah sent bombs to Israel. Today, Iran’s president expressed regret for attacks on neighboring countries and said he would refrain from attacks if the attacks did not originate from those countries. What can be developed in the area? Michael Wahid Hanna is the US Program Director at the International Crisis Group. Thank you so much for being with us.
Michael Wahid Hanna: Good to be with you.
SIMON: And we talked about in June when you were concerned about a broader regional war as the U.S. and Israel carried out limited strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Is what we’ve seen over the past week coming up to you?
Hannah: In many ways. I mean, when we last spoke in June, I noticed how volatile the situation was and there was already some concern that this wasn’t the end of the story. And what we’ve seen since the start of the US-Israeli war with Iran is this kind of regionalization of conflict that I think many of us have been worried about for some time.
And in previous cases, I think we avoided worst-case scenarios, but this looks different. As you said, regional countries have been drawn into the fray. They have, in some cases, taken the spotlight away from Iran. And major US bases were targeted. And so it’s a different picture than in June, when Iran, you know, basically telegraphed its retaliation and at that point the war came to a quick end, 12 days later. And it’s hard to see this particular conflict following that kind of scenario.
SIMON: Could this war make Middle Eastern countries rethink their relationship with the US?
Hannah: It’s very possible. You know, I think we’ve heard a lot about the general crunch in terms of air defense, air defense is down. And one of the biggest concerns for countries in the Gulf, particularly facing incoming fire from Iran, is that they will run out of interceptors and lose the ability to defend themselves. And, of course, the incredible lack of interceptors. You know, Americans need them. Israelis need them. Other theaters need them. So the question of whether they will be able to protect themselves and their citizens is really on their mind.
SIMON: In an online post, President Trump basically dismissed the Iranian president’s claim that Iran would refrain from attacking neighboring states unless it was bombed. What do you make of the president’s statement? Is he strong enough to do that?
Hannah: That’s a good question. I mean, I think I’d be wary of taking it at face value. Obviously, just yesterday we saw the attacks on the Gulf countries. So I think it is premature to assume that this is the beginning of a completely new direction. It’s a major escalation, but given how the war has unfolded, I doubt it’s really the next step for Iran in terms of a retaliatory approach.
Simon: And, Mr. Hanna, we see reports that the CIA may begin relocating Iraqi Kurdish groups and sending them to Iran. Do you think this is a possibility? What will be the effect? Do you think more non-state groups could be involved?
Hannah: Well, that’s obviously a possibility. We are hearing about it in press reports and there are indications from the ground that something is happening. You know, I still wouldn’t blow it out of proportion. I think it says that US policy is prepared to consider regime instability as a potential outcome. And if you look at the recent history of state failure in Iraq or Syria or Yemen or Libya, that’s really quite concerning because state failure in those places has been a real challenge to US interests in recent years.
Simon: Well, help us add it. What is meant by regional instability? What would be the practical implications?
Hanna: Well, if you have some kind of catastrophic success in the sense of destabilizing the Iranian regime, you’re unlikely to completely oust the leadership. There are supporters. There are military forces. Iran, a very large country, has IRGC forces that have been the dominant military actor for decades.
And if you look at further destabilization what you can get is a civil war like internal strife. And it is highly unlikely that it will remain within Iran’s borders. As we have seen with Iraq and Syria, these types of conflicts are not contained in the Middle East. So, I think the Israelis are quite comfortable with the idea of a destabilizing and kind of absurd Iran, which I doubt the United States can live with in terms of the spillover effects it could have on that region and the Gulf, and the way it would affect US allies and partners in that region.
SIMON: Michael Wahid Hanna of the International Crisis Group. Thank you so much for being with us.
Hannah: Thanks for having me.
Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. For more information visit our Website Terms of Use and Permissions pages at www.npr.org.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or accommodate updates to the audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The official record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
