>> Well, today the war in Iran has left 7 U.S.

service members killed and about 140 injured.

It's reportedly resulted in more than 1300 casualties in Iran, including 175 people in a strike on a school.

The majority of whom were children as well as hundreds in Lebanon and at least 12 killed in Israel.

Several polls show a majority of Americans disapprove of the controversial war.

President Trump said Monday that the war will resemble a quote short-term excursion through, though Iran's blockade of the flow of oil in the Strait of Hormuz may extend the timeline.

Meanwhile, an Iranian official said, quote, Iran will determine when the war ends to help us analyze the situation.

We are joined by Leslie Binge, a Maury president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs among many other position.

She served as director of the U.S.

in the Americas program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs known Chatham House in London.

Thank you for joining us as appreciate it.

Thank you.

So in February, on the eve of the strikes eroding analysis of President Trump's strategy for the war in Iran and you called the tactics, quote, coercive diplomacy, which you describe as being conventional but difficult to execute define that strategy and how it's playing out for us.

Please course of diplomacy.

When you use the threat to use military force either in a limited way or in a more fulsome way in order to in a sense require the target of your coercion, Iran in this case to deliver on a clearly said set of articulated goals and objectives.

And so you know what?

It looked like was that President Trump had deployed a very large or moderate to the region during ongoing talks in Geneva and that he was in a sense what very clearly threatening to use some sort of military force.

We're Ron was around not to kind of step up and deliver on the articulated goals of of the talks.

I mean, this is a very hard thing to do in a perfect environment.

It's it especially hard to do when you have a president that sort of specializes in disruption, uncertainty, unpredictability, coercion, you know, requires you to clearly articulate what it is that you expect to see to credibly commit to a certain form punishment.

If you don't see that and certainly saw the punishment.

But what we're learning is that, you know, Iran was participating in the talks that they producing documents about what they would deliver and that the U.S.

and Israel clearly just decided that the time was now to strike.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been advocating for intervention in Iran for decades.

Israel has launched a bombing campaign against Hezbollah and left Lebanon.

>> Opening another front in this war moving several miles into a neighboring country.

What are Israel's goals for the region?

I mean, Israel clearly has a legitimate security concern.

Iran does recognize the right of Israel to prior to prior to the last year or or so.

Iran had a lot more power across the region.

It was using.

>> Proxies to to all sorts of campaigns that were not in Israel's interests that were a threat to its security.

So given the positioning of Israel, given that threat is real is clearly wanted to get rid of the risk that that Iran might have a nuclear weapon at some point take out.

stick missiles and but also reduce ability to provoke and commit terror across the region.

The question then is what were they also adamant desiring regime change?

I think the answer regime change.

And I think the answer is clearly yes to that question.

How much of the U.S.

has diplomatic interests have been tied up in and dictated by those of Israel, the United States for a long time has wanted to see 0, 0, capacity on the part of Iran to produce a nuclear weapon.

The question of whether it was willing to expand those goals that, you know, clearly the United States is not like the ballistic missiles program.

It hasn't liked the regional activity, but the question of regime change is a whole nother step.

And there is, you know, there is a sense that the United States and were sort of pulling together on this, that Israel's.

Clear interest and commitment and conviction have shaped President Trump's decisions in the region.

But there's a real ambiguity here.

You know how closely are the United States and Israel aligned right now?

Are they pulling apart?

Some many people think they're pulling apart on their goals and this matters right now because if the United States were to decide game over, we're done, we're sort of withdrawing.

It's not at all clear that Israel will will follow suit.

It its own ambitions right now in it and it in a tremendous amount of strength.

think a lot of folks are wondering how long is this conflict likely to go?

The president's administration has not given a very clear picture on that.

Only to say, you know it, it'll be over soon.

>> Based on similar interventions that we know that in the region.

How long can this go This could go on for a very long time.

I mean, I think the the problem is that you go in with one objective, your objectives, change the situation on the ground changes the the war has widened.

It has escalated Iran's retaliation has been very significant attacking American interests across the Gulf, attacking the Qataris, the Saudis and their interests across the Gulf.

And so you see the potential for the U.S.

getting pulled further and further in.

And it's not clear.

You know, I think the concern that so many of us have, certainly I have is that that that the U.S.

government and its component parts parts haven't really been working together.

Commuting tick, communicating to the president.

The risks of escalation the and intended consequences that were likely to flow from the initial strikes and having a set of objectives for how to manage those, how to limit them and what at what point the U.S.

would retreat.

So it's entirely possible that President Trump sort of calls a day says says enough is enough.

It's not at all clear that Israel would follow suit.

It's not at all clear that Iran would follow suit.

I think that the U.S.

doesn't control this war right now.

It's a dominant player, but it is one of several in the region.

It's not clear what the Gulf States will do.

They're sort of being asked provocatively and under under coercion to take to join in.

So this this could end quickly or it could go on for a long time.

But even if ends, the problem is now fundamentally different than what the U.S.

faced before the strikes and it and it is going to be very significant, very dangerous, very risky.

And we've heard from today.

The idea that Iran wants to retaliate with drone strikes on the West coast of the United States of America.

Mean this is just quite shocking briefly, before we let you go, there's an ongoing investigation of the U.S.

Tom McCall, Tomahawk missile that struck near a primary school in Iran.

And as we mentioned, 175 people 110 of them killed.

>> Could this be a violation of international law?

>> You on the technical, very important legal question.

A lot of it will have to do with intention.

But in the broader in a couple of things, one is we tend to focus on how wars are fought when it comes to legal question.

There is a question of whether the entire operation is legal.

It is an illegal war.

There wasn't an imminent threat to the United States.

There was a there was a decision to use force while negotiations were ongoing.

You then get to the question of the devastating tragic loss of lives, the killing of a lot of young girls in the school.

The scary part is, you know, whether it's determined after this investigation is concluded to have been looted, the legal or illegal.

It's so far been determined to be the responsibility of their states.

President Trump needs to acknowledge this needs to take responsibility, needs to apologize to the Iranian to the people from the grave humanitarian crisis.

There's also a larger question.

Was that we lose the hearts and minds of people around the world when we don't take responsibility.

yeah, a very tragic situation.