Experts Got Iran Wrong Again

My friends, one of the most common headlines you’ll see in modern media reads: Experts Were Wrong … Again.

We saw it during COVID. We saw it with economic predictions. And now we’re seeing it again in the foreign policy arena—specifically with the recent conflict involving Iran.

Before the United States and Israel launched strikes, the so-called experts warned us about catastrophic consequences. They painted a picture of a Middle East engulfed in chaos.

As Victoria Coates writes in her latest op-ed at Fox News, the “experts” said:

But here we are today—and none of those predictions have materialized.

In fact, the opposite appears to be happening.

Iran’s Supreme Leader was taken out in one of the opening strikes. The feared multi-front regional war hasn’t erupted. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—groups long believed to be Iran’s proxy armies—have largely stayed quiet rather than launching massive retaliatory attacks.

Meanwhile, rather than isolating Israel, several nations in the region appear to be aligning against Iran’s regime.

Now, to be clear, military strategy and global conflicts are incredibly complicated. There is nothing wrong with studying potential risks or planning for worst-case scenarios.

In fact, that’s exactly what responsible leaders should do.

But what bothers me—and what I discussed on today’s program—is that the experts are almost never held accountable when their predictions fail.

Instead, the same people who got it wrong yesterday show up tomorrow demanding that we trust them again.

And this problem extends far beyond foreign policy.

It’s a pattern.

Too often we’re told to believe something simply because “the experts” say it’s true. That’s a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. Instead of explaining their reasoning, some simply insist that disagreement itself is ignorance.

But a healthy society doesn’t operate that way.

Ideas should be debated. Predictions should be evaluated. And when the experts get it wrong, we should examine why.

Because if they were wrong about this conflict, it raises an important question: What else might they be wrong about?

We also discussed another major development on today’s show.

The White House now says U.S. war objectives against Iran could be achieved within the next four to six weeks. Those objectives reportedly include degrading Iran’s military capabilities, dismantling elements of its nuclear infrastructure, and weakening the regime’s command structure.

At the same time, Iran’s leadership is scrambling to maintain control.

Ali Khamenei is gone, and the regime has attempted to elevate his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as the next supreme leader. Critics inside Iran have already raised concerns that this resembles hereditary succession rather than legitimate leadership.

Which brings us to the real question: what comes next?

Ideally, the Iranian people themselves would be able to break free from the oppressive regime that has ruled them for decades.

That’s a future many Iranians have long hoped for.

But regardless of how the political situation unfolds, the lesson here remains the same.

Predictions—especially the dramatic ones—should always be examined carefully.

Because time and time again, the experts have proven that they don’t always know what they think they know.

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

⚠️ Experts predicted chaos after Iran strikes
🎯 Iran’s Supreme Leader eliminated early in the conflict
🛑 Terrorist proxies failed to launch regional war
🌍 Israel not isolated—regional alignment shifting
📉 Iran’s military capabilities rapidly degrading
🧠 Why blindly trusting “experts” is a dangerous habit

^{The Stack of Stuff honors the memory of Rush Limbaugh by keeping his iconic phrase alive — only this time, it’s digital. These links give you context for today’s Toddcast, including pieces that back me up, push back, or simply lay out the facts so you can decide for yourself.}

For more on today’s Toddcast, visit today’s Stack on our website and dig in.

If you’re a decision maker at your company, you need to be on the bleeding edge of, well, everything. But before you go signing up for seminars, conferences, lunch ‘n learns, and all that jazz, just know there’s a far better (and simpler) way: Subscribing to The Deep View.

This daily newsletter condenses everything you need to know about the latest and greatest AI developments into a 5-minute read. Squeeze it into your morning coffee break and before you know it, you’ll be an expert too.

Subscribe right here. It’s totally free, wildly informative, and trusted by 600,000+ readers at Google, Meta, Microsoft, and beyond.

My friends, last week Joe Biden took the podium at Jesse Jackson’s funeral. For reasons I will never fully understand, Biden decided that was the moment to tell the audience - after referencing his childhood stutter - “I’m a hell of a lot smarter than you.”

I’ve had the honor of giving a few eulogies. As I prepared my remarks, the goal was straightforward: honor the person who passed, comfort the family, and respect the moment.

At no point did it occur to me that it might be helpful - or appropriate - to criticize the intelligence of the people sitting in the room. And you certainly don’t use that moment to elevate yourself above people gathered to grieve and remember someone they loved.

Some moments definitely call for humility. It’s safe to say a funeral is one of them.

If the last few years have taught us anything, it’s this: predictions—especially confident ones—deserve scrutiny.

That doesn’t mean “expertise” is worthless. Quite the opposite. Expertise is valuable, necessary, and often incredibly helpful. But the way our culture identifies and treats experts today sometimes turns professional opinion into something closer to unquestionable authority.

And that’s where problems begin.

One reason expert predictions frequently miss the mark is groupthink. In large institutions—government agencies, universities, media organizations—people often absorb the same assumptions, read the same analysis, and interact within the same professional circles. Over time, a shared opinion forms—especially when these folks all share the same worldview.

When everyone in the room begins from the same assumptions, predictions can start to sound unanimous—even when the underlying reality is far more uncertain.

Another factor is incentives. Experts are rarely rewarded for being cautiously correct. They are far more likely to gain attention, airtime, and credibility by making bold predictions. Dramatic warnings attract headlines. Nuanced uncertainty does not.

On top of that, if a so-called “expert” is funded by the federal government, there is a temptation to overly dramatize the circumstances and risks.

As a result, forecasts often drift toward worst-case scenarios. Not necessarily because analysts believe those outcomes are most likely, but because they are the easiest to justify and the hardest to criticize in advance.

There is also a deeper human problem at work: complex systems are incredibly difficult to predict. Wars, economies, pandemics, and political movements all involve millions of variables interacting at once. Even the most sophisticated models can’t capture every human decision, every strategic miscalculation, or every unexpected turn of events.

None of this means we should ignore expertise. But it does mean we should approach confident predictions with humility—especially when they are presented as certainty rather than analysis.

In a healthy society, experts inform the conversation. They don’t end it.

And, candidly, they should welcome robust discourse.

Predictions should be tested. Assumptions should be challenged. And when forecasts turn out to be wrong, we should examine why.

Because the real danger isn’t that experts sometimes make mistakes.

The real danger is when we stop questioning them because they are “experts.”