Two Sides Think They Won. That's the Problem.
After the US airman rescue and Iran's F-15 kill, both Washington and Tehran are dangerously confident—and history suggests that's when things break.
An American F-15 went down over southern Iran. The US pulled off a ground rescue. Iran shot down the plane. Both sides are now claiming victory.
This is how wars start—not with miscalculation, but with successful calculation that feels too good to be true.
Photo by Vitaly Gariev / Pexels
The Rescue That Changed Nothing (Except Everything)
Let’s be clear about what happened. Iran downed a US fighter jet. That’s an act of war under any sober reading of international law. The US then conducted a ground operation—a rescue mission inside Iranian territory—and got their airman out alive. Both operations worked.
Here’s where it gets dangerous: both sides think this proves something about their strength.
For Washington, the narrative is obvious. The US military can execute a complex rescue operation deep in hostile territory and extract personnel against the odds. Trump immediately weaponized this into a taunt. His response wasn’t diplomatic or measured—it was a threat wrapped in an expletive, promising strikes on Iranian power plants if Iran doesn’t “fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz.” The implicit message: we’re capable, we’re willing, and we’re angry.
Iran’s reading is different but equally confident. They shot down a fourth-generation fighter jet. They demonstrated air defense capability. They showed the US that there are costs to operating in their airspace. And crucially, they participated in the rescue effort itself—recovery operations were described as “separate search efforts by both the US and Iran.” That collaboration, however pragmatic, lets Tehran tell its domestic audience: even America needs us sometimes.
Both confidence boosts are real. Both are also potentially catastrophic.
The Pope Is Begging. Nobody’s Listening.
Pope Leo XIV—new to the job, by the way, which adds a layer of earnestness to his message—stood in St. Peter’s Square on Easter Sunday and basically pleaded with global leaders to stop waging war. His Palm Sunday homily was sharper: God rejects the prayers of “those who wage war.”
That’s not abstract theology. That’s a direct message aimed at active belligerents. And it’ll have precisely zero effect on Trump’s tweeting or Iran’s air defenses.
Why mention it? Because it’s a data point showing the international community’s helplessness right now. When the Pope—the closest thing we have to a global moral authority—has to resort to Easter pleas, you know diplomatic channels are fried.
Photo by Mathias Reding / Pexels
Hungary’s Election Theater
One more thing is happening, and it’s weirder but possibly more revealing about 2025’s chaos.
Hungary is alleging a plot to blow up a gas pipeline one week before elections. The government warns of “operations staged to influence voters.” This is either genuine intelligence about sabotage or a textbook pre-election scare tactic. Probably both. The point is: state actors across the globe are now openly comfortable with the idea that infrastructure can be weaponized for political effect.
Why does this matter alongside Iran and the US? Because it suggests a world where escalation tactics—whether military strikes, infrastructure sabotage, or intelligence ops—are increasingly seen as normal policy tools. Not last resorts. Not violations. Tools.
When that becomes normalized across regions and players, incidents compound faster.
My Read on What Happens Next
I think both sides are about to test each other harder.
Trump’s threat about Iranian power plants wasn’t casual. It was specific. And it telegraphed a willingness to strike infrastructure—the kind of escalation that historically triggers counterescalation. Iran won’t ignore it. They’ll either prepare defenses, plan a response, or both.
Here’s my prediction: within 90 days, there’s either a direct military exchange (a US strike on Iranian targets, Iranian retaliation) or a dramatic diplomatic reversal. There won’t be a middle ground. The confidence both sides feel right now makes half-measures impossible. If Trump thinks the rescue proves American capability, he’ll use it. If Iran thinks downing the jet proves their capability, they’ll test it again.
The rescue succeeded tactically. It failed strategically because it reinforced the worst instinct on both sides—the belief that strength can substitute for diplomacy. It can’t.
What genuinely unsettles me is that I can’t tell which direction this tips. I’ve reported from Tehran and DC enough to know that both cities have hardliners who see conflict as clarifying. Both have people in power right now. And I’m genuinely uncertain whether cooler heads exist anymore or whether they’ve been muscled out of the room.
That uncertainty itself is the warning sign.
Photo by Mathias Reding / Pexels
A Quiet Data Point: Cambodia’s Rat Monument
Cambodia built a statue honoring a now-deceased African giant pouched rat that sniffed out over 100 landmines during its lifetime. It’s absurd. It’s also deeply human—we build memorials to creatures that helped us survive.
Why bring this up in a column about Iran and the US? Because somewhere in the world, there’s still a capacity for remembering that some problems aren’t solved with weapons. That detection, clearing, and patience work. That small, unglamorous effort matters more than displays of force.
We’re not there yet. Not even close.
What I’m Watching
Trump’s next public statement on Iran. If he doubles down on the power plant threat within 48 hours, it signals he’s locked into escalation. If he pivots to negotiation language, it suggests someone in the room pumped the brakes. Watch the tone, not just the content—expletives and taunts mean he’s energized the hardliners around him.
Iranian air defense deployments. Satellite imagery and defense ministry announcements about repositioning air systems would tell us whether Tehran’s moving from posturing to preparation. That’s the moment we know it’s not rhetorical anymore.
Strait of Hormuz traffic. Trump’s demand that Iran “fully reopen” it (implying it’s partially closed) is specific. Monitor whether Iran actually restricts shipping in response or whether this was just a rhetorical flex. Disruptions to tanker traffic would signal Iran’s willing to impose economic pain—and willing to accept retaliation.
European diplomatic movement in the next 14 days. The Pope’s Easter plea suggests someone’s still trying. Watch whether the EU, France, or Germany initiate direct talks. If they do nothing by mid-April, the diplomatic option is probably dead.