Iran War Expert: The 8 Most Dangerous Weeks Begin Now, A Cyberattack Could Knock Out The Internet! | Prof Robert Pape

The Trump administration’s Iran strategy mirrors a gambler’s behavior, repeatedly doubling down on military action despite mounting failures and rising domestic and political risks.

Trump's Position Mirrors a Gambler on a Losing Streak Making Risky Bets to Recover Losses

Gambler's Cycle Begins as Military Success in Iran Fails Strategically; Iran Controls Strait of Hormuz, Impacting 20% of Global Oil Supply

Each escalation by President Trump can be read as a high-stakes bet. First, Trump believed attacking and possibly killing Iran’s Supreme Leader would weaken Iran’s resolve. This did not happen; Iran retained control of the vital Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil flows, thus maintaining considerable leverage and contributing to increasing global gas prices. As these actions failed to bring about strategic success, American economic and political “chips” were lost—seen in rising gas prices, impacts to American lives, and higher interest rates.

Amid Initial Loss, Trump Bets on Air Campaign to Target Iranian Leadership, Hoping Dramatic Action Will Reverse Outcome

Failing to break Iran’s resistance with leadership-targeted strikes, Trump escalated to a major, six-week air campaign against Iranian targets, wagering that this dramatic escalation would force a reversal. However, after months of bombing, Iran had not collapsed or conceded, and gas prices continued to rise—marking another major loss.

Trump's Political Chips: Party Support and Maga Legacy at Risk With Military Failures and Rising Gas Prices Hurting Gop Prospects

These repeated foreign policy losses translated into political danger for Trump and the GOP. As Robert Pape notes, party support is like borrowed chips in a casino; every failed military bet further erodes trust among Republican senators and congressmen. If the midterms and the transition to a new Congress do not resolve in Trump’s favor, his political agenda and MAGA legacy become increasingly fragile, threatening his grip on the party and future prospects.

Trump Confronts a Deadline Akin to a Bookie's Payment Demand, as Midterms and January's Congressional Transition Decide His Party's Power to Support His Agenda and Safeguard His Crypto Interests

Trump faces a gambler’s deadline with the upcoming midterms and January’s congressional transition. As Pape describes, the chips he’s wagering are the political support and MAGA control needed to guard his interests. Should the GOP’s losses mount, support will evaporate, just as a bookie requires payment when the gambler falls behind.

Trump Family's Cryptocurrency Wealth Hinges On Maintaining Power

Financially, Trump and his family’s wealth—particularly in cryptocurrency and prediction markets—depends on retaining power. Trump’s rising or falling political fortunes are closely tied to the value of these investments. Steven Bartlett points out Trump’s family’s involvement in prediction market companies and the hold they have exercised over regulations. If Trump loses power, the paper value of these investments could disappear overnight, further intensifying the gambled stakes.

Chess vs. Roulette Explains why Trump Won't Accept a Negotiated Settlement Despite Its Strategic Rationality

Chess Players Recognize Losing Positions and Offer Draws; International Politics, Like Roulette, Sees Leaders Double Down Instead Of Accepting Losses

Robert Pape contrasts rational strategy in chess, where players facing a likely loss often offer a draw, with the actual dynamics of international politics, which resembles roulette. In chess, strategic calculation often leads good players to accept a drawn outcome to minimize losses. In politics, however, when behind, leaders like Trump feel compelled to double down—risking even more in hopes of a dramatic turnaround, rarely taking an exit even when it is rational.

Johnson's Vietnam: A Precedent for Presidential Loss-Chasing and Escalation

Pape draws parallels to Lyndon Johnson’s approach in Vietnam—escalating further as losses mounted, attempting again and again to avoid the stigma of failure and the collapse of his legacy. Such history shows that the compulsion to recover mounting losses is a political pattern, not unique to Trump or the MAGA movement.

Trump CanNot Relax and Golf For two Years as It Would Make Him Appear a Failed President, Like Carter and Johnson, Creating an Unacceptable Legacy

When asked why Trump doesn’t simply ride out the remainder of his term, Pape explains that presidents rarely choose this path because it would mean abandoning their party, agenda, and historical legacy—equivalent, in Trump’s mind, to being remembered as a failure like Carter or Johnson. This unacceptable outcome drives further escalation rather than a negotiated or de-escalatory ...

The United States faces an unprecedented convergence of domestic and global crises in the eight weeks following the midterm elections. These “eight most dangerous weeks,” as Robert Pape describes them, coincide with the tumultuous transition of power, escalating tensions with Iran, and renewed aggression from Russia in Ukraine. Together they threaten not just American democracy but global security and stability.

Post-Midterm Power Transition Heightens Risk of Domestic Political Violence in U.S. Since Civil War

The period from when votes are cast to when Congress officially certifies the election outcome is the single most vulnerable moment for American democracy since the Civil War. From the moment the ballots are counted until the new victors are seated—a process stretched over two months—political uncertainty and polarization reach their zenith.

Pape emphasizes that this is when violent populism is most likely to erupt, as was seen during the January 6th Capitol breach. The prospect of either Trump or Democrats refusing to accept the election results could ignite unrest, especially while ballots remain uncertified and both sides mobilize protests. If counting and legal disputes drag on, public trust erodes and volatile situations escalate.

Polling reveals the fragility of American civil peace: over 40 million Americans support deploying the military to suppress anti-Trump protests, while more than 60 million back the use of force to prevent Trump’s return to the presidency—a number that doubled since just September 2024. These elevated tensions, compared to previous years marked by attempts on political leaders' lives, underscore unprecedented levels of support for domestic political violence.

If Democrats win control of Congress, their constitutional authority would allow them to issue subpoenas and initiate impeachment—not solely targeting President Trump but also key cabinet members like the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, or Agriculture. This would create operational chaos, paralyzing essential government functions and threatening the very core of the Trump presidency. According to Pape, there is no political bottom to this spiral; ongoing cabinet purges and mass removals could spark further unrest and government breakdown.

The looming potential for mass protests and direct confrontation between demonstrators and federal forces raises the specter of deploying American troops in the streets—a scenario not seen since the civil rights era of the 1950s and 60s. Amidst an international backdrop, such domestic instability could cascade into a full-blown emergency where the Insurrection Act is invoked, plunging the nation into deeper crisis.

Iran Conflict Escalation Aligns With Election Crisis, Reinforcing Instability

Compounding the domestic crisis, the election period coincides with President Trump’s long-promised escalation against Iran. In the immediate aftermath of the midterms, U.S. military and intelligence have made concrete preparations for coordinated strikes, with Israeli involvement, targeting Iran over a projected three-day campaign. Trump repeatedly frames this as “decision time,” weighing between negotiation and definitive action.

The anticipated air war, modeled after the “instant thunder” campaign against Saddam Hussein in 1991, aims to cripple Iranian military capacity. Yet, as Pape warns from decades of analysis and modeling, history shows initial successes do not paralyze adversaries; remnants of Iran’s military would retain significant retaliatory power. This includes the capability to strike U.S. regional bases, airports, and to launch missile or cyber attacks—just as Hussein retaliated against Saudi and American targets with Scud missiles, despite intense bombings.

Prolonged bombing campaigns almost inevitably devolve into deeper U.S. involvement. Decentralized Iranian retaliation, unfolding with its own momentum, risks region-wide escalation and significant civilian casualties—between five and fifteen thousand were killed ...

Political violence in the United States is no longer limited to fringe actors or isolated incidents. Robert Pape describes a new era of “violent populism,” in which violence shifts from the fringes to the mainstream and has the potential to mobilize millions.

Violent Populism: Political Violence Expands From Isolated Incidents to Mainstream Participation by Millions

Pape defines violent populism as the moment when political violence moves from being carried out by small numbers of extremists to attracting broad participation from the general population. Instead of an isolated political assassination or a localized protest—such as the Rodney King riots in the 1990s—violent populism manifests through strings of attacks and protests that quickly spread well beyond their points of origin.

Fuel for Violent Populism: Americans on Both Political Sides Support Political Violence, Showing Normalized Extremism

According to Pape, the “combustible material” fueling violent populism is the willingness of tens of millions of Americans on both the left and right to support political violence. He cites 40 million people supporting violence for Trump’s aims, and over 60 million supporting political violence against Trump’s goals. This widespread normalization of extremism means that, under the right conditions, unrest can quickly escalate from isolated to broad-based.

Spark Ignited by Confrontations, Violent Rhetoric, or Threats to Election Legitimacy

Pape likens violent populism to a wildfire. While the size of the “combustible material” is measurable, the spark that ignites it is unpredictable. Confrontations, inflammatory rhetoric, or threats to the legitimacy of elections can act as this catalyst—turning latent support for violence into mass action.

Violent Populism Spreads Rapidly: France Riots Expand Beyond Borders

Examples from abroad, like the recent riots in France, illustrate how violence can spread beyond a single city or country. What might begin as a protest in one place can escalate to multiple locations and even spill over to other nations. This rapid diffusion is a hallmark of modern violent populism.

Historical Examples Show Leaders Mobilizing Violent Populism Via Rhetoric and Digital Communication

The January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol exemplifies how leaders can mobilize violent populism.

Trump's Jan 6th Capitol Riot Incitement

Pape details how President Trump, with a tweet on December 19, 2020, called supporters to Washington, D.C. On the day of the rally, Trump addressed the crowd at the Ellipse and urged them to march on the Capitol. Another tweet blaming Mike Pence for letting him down was the pivotal spark that sent the assembled crowd storming the Capitol through multiple entry points.

Chants Of "Hang Mike Pence" Show how Communication Directs Violent Energy Toward Targets and Objectives

In the aftermath, the crowd’s chants—“hang Mike Pence”—demonstrated how targeted communication from leaders and social networks could rapidly direct mass anger toward specific objectives and individuals.

Social Media Rapidly Spreads Information, Turning Isolated Incidents Into Widespread Movements That Outpace Institutional Respon ...

Robert Pape describes an escalating global crisis in which wars in Iran and Ukraine, coupled with instability in the United States, are no longer isolated events but interconnected crises amplifying each other's dangers. This escalation increases the risk of broader conflict and system-wide disruptions across multiple countries simultaneously.

Iran Conflict, Ukraine War, US Domestic Instability Interconnected Economically and Psychologically

Pape observes that escalating conflicts in Iran and Ukraine intersect with economic and political instability within the US, generating feedback loops that worsen public anxiety and governmental tension. He forecasts rising gas and diesel prices, further contraction of the frozen housing market, and widespread economic deterioration. These conditions are not simply products of events in one country—they are actively interacting and feeding off one another, creating a mounting global crisis.

Rising Energy Prices From Iran War and Ukraine Winter Attacks Spark European Riots and American Instability Amid Widespread Economic Deterioration

Pape links rising energy prices caused by the Iran conflict and winter attacks in Ukraine to protests and riots, notably in France, which have spread to other parts of Europe. He references opinion poll data showing that increased prices due to the Iran war are a key factor driving unrest. This, he asserts, is not confined to Europe; major protests and instability are emerging in the United States as well, as energy and economic crises penetrate domestic life. These international issues are now converging, producing a world economy and public discourse that react to crises in real time.

Simultaneous Wars' Psychological Impact Pressures Retaliation as Populations Demand Action Against Aggressors

Beyond economics, the psychological effects of multiple ongoing wars heighten anxiety and increase public demands for government action. As Pape points out, people’s perceptions of insecurity and aggression push political leaders toward more aggressive responses, ratcheting up the risk of escalation.

Regional Escalation Pressures: A Ratcheting Effect on Conflict Management

Pape describes how contentious US elections and delayed transfer of power interact with crises abroad, compounding instability and increasing incentives for further escalation. These pressures build on each other, making it more difficult to de-escalate any one crisis in isolation.

Cyber Attacks: From Proxy Warfare to Direct Military Confrontation

Cyber attacks have become a new front in global conflict, moving the world closer to the risk of direct military engagement between major powers.

UK Government's "Be Ready" Campaign: Urges Citizens to Stockpile Supplies Amid Imminent Cyber Threats

Pape and Steven Bartlett discuss the UK government’s official "Be Ready" campaign. The campaign urges British households to stockpile at least three days’ worth of essentials—water, tinned food, battery or wind-up torches, radios, power banks, first aid kits, and physical cash—to prepare for cyber warfare, hostile state attacks, or a collapse of national infrastructure. This unprecedented public warning has already led to panic buying, stripping supermarket shelves and triggering a run on emergency supplies.

Cyber Attacks on Utilities Could Trigger Crises, Sparking Public Calls For Retaliation and Diplomatic Challenges

Pape details that cyber attacks on basic utilities—such as the July power and water outages in Minnesota, which US intelligence suspects were likely Iranian in origin—demonstrate how state-backed cyber operations can create real-world disruptions. When utilities and the internet are shut down for days instead of minutes, societies face crises that can provoke overwhelming public demand for retaliation, intensifying diplomatic and military challenges.

Europe May Face Pressure to Directly Retaliate Against Moscow if Cyber Attacks on Critical Infrastructure Persist, Beyond Proxy Support for Ukraine

If cyber attacks organized by Russia or its allies intensify, European publics may pressure their governments to respond not just with proxy measures but with direct retaliation against Moscow. This is a marked escalation from curr ...

Robert Pape outlines a series of crucial interventions—"firebreaks"—that can be implemented through policy, diplomatic channels, and grassroots engagement to prevent escalation and protect vulnerable populations during volatile times.

Congressional Action Can Prevent Iran Escalation Until New Congress, Unless Iran Strikes First

Pape asserts that every current member of Congress, whether in the lame duck session or newly elected, should publicly commit to a core firebreak: no escalation by the Trump administration in Iran until a new Congress is seated, unless Iran initiates an attack. This declaration would serve as a red line, signaling that any aggressive U.S. escalation in Iran absent Iranian provocation is unacceptable. Furthermore, this stance provides President Trump an off-ramp, allowing him to present any pause as an act of readiness and confidence rather than weakness or an attempt to recover from prior losses. Such a Congressional posture would interrupt any momentum toward escalation and act as a vital check on executive authority in this sensitive period.

Credible Mediating Nations Should Coordinate Demands for Humanitarian Protection as a Principle

Pape highlights the essential role of credible mediators like Pakistan, Qatar, and increasingly India—nations already involved in behind-the-scenes negotiations with powers like Russia and Ukraine. These mediators should lead a coordinated initiative to press all states to adopt a "hands off civilians" principle. This entails a categorical call for no direct targeting of civilian infrastructure or residential areas by state actors. Establishing this norm would help protect non-combatants in conflict and empower countries to support humanitarian protections from a neutral standpoint. Such a mediator-led initiative can reinforce the global expectation that civilian lives and infrastructure are off-limits in any state conflict.

Moratorium on Federal Agents in Cities Without Local Approval Prevents Violent Populism

During election certification and vote counting seasons, Pape advocates for every governor and mayor to call on President Trump for a two-month moratorium on deploying federally armed agents to cities unless expressly requested by local authorities. This unified call is not a condemnation of the federal government, but a specific safety measure designed to remove key sparks that could ignite violent populism—especially among ...