Why is Trump risking midterm disaster by resuming an already unpopular war with Iran? | US-Israel war on Iran

For half a century, Donald Trump has been a public high-wire act, relying on high-stakes risks and subverting long-established norms to get his way.

This approach has paid significant dividends; enabling him to survive multiple bankruptcies, achieve billionaire status, and be twice elected president of the United States after numerous legal and political scandals.

Now, a leader who once owned some of the world’s best-known casinos may be about to take the biggest gamble of his presidency by restarting the war with Iran less than a month after agreeing to a ceasefire he thought was necessary to stop it. Economic crisis on par with the Great Depression.

Last week, Trump ordered the resumption of strikes against Iran’s military and infrastructure targets after concluding that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) he signed at the Palace of Versailles on June 17 had fallen through. Iran has retaliated with drone and missile attacks on US allies in the Gulf. The Memorandum of Understanding was the subject of harsh criticism from the neoconservative wing of Republicans, who condemned it as capitulation to Iran.

With less than four months until the November midterm elections, in which Democrats seek to retake both houses of Congress, Trump appears to be flirting with electoral disaster to reignite a brewing war. not popular anyway with voters – not least because of its inflationary impact on fuel and living costs.

“There’s basically no timeline where this makes sense from a conservation standpoint. [Republicans’] mid-term performance,” he said. Curt MillsHe is the editor-in-chief of the American Conservative, a magazine that promotes the isolationist foreign policy goals favored by Trump’s “American first” supporters.

“I think this is a total bummer. This is evidence that Trump doesn’t really care about the midterms. He’s like the Sunny Icarus on these issues; he seems to have a personal vendetta with the Iranians.”

Beyond the electoral impact, experts warn that escalation of tensions could inevitably lead to a land invasion of Iranian territory; This decision could lead to the kind of long-term “endless wars” he has previously spoken of and condemned past presidents for.

“My initial assessment was that this would be just another disruption, a cyclical violence, and then we would be back. [to the ceasefire and negotiations],” in question Nate SwansonA former secretary of state and White House advisor to Iran. “But the climb has already exceeded what I thought was possible.

“I see this as an effort to re-establish leverage and try to renegotiate the MoU, “But it is very risky, with potentially devastating consequences, and in my view it will probably fail.”

At the heart of the renewed violence is control of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically vital waterway that was the transit point for 20% of world energy exports before war broke out on February 28 and has emerged as Tehran’s biggest bargaining chip as it tries to resist pressure to concede on issues such as its nuclear program and support for proxy groups such as the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah.

The Memorandum of Understanding aimed to pave the way for a 60-day ceasefire during which negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program would take place.

At the same time, Iran will reopen the strait, which it closed in response to US and Israeli attacks, causing global oil prices to rise, in exchange for significant relief from sanctions, including the right to sell its oil on international markets and the unfreezing of billions of dollars of assets.

Within a few days, problems arose.

Iran opened fire on merchant ships belonging to neighboring Gulf kingdoms after using a shipping lane near the coast of neutral Oman under US naval protection, rather than previously used routes off the Iranian coast, where Tehran authorities can control passage and charge “service” fees that Washington DC and its allies say are equivalent to illegal tolls.

Some analysts blame the flare-up on poor negotiations in the United States, which led to misunderstandings and ambiguities in the MoU, which made no mention of shipping lines.

However Governor NasrA professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies argued that the collapse of the MoU was a result of miscalculations by the United States and Iran.

“I don’t think there is a misunderstanding. I think that’s exactly what Trump is aiming for,” he said.

quoted latest comments US vice president J.D. Vance suggested that the MoU was signed to give the opportunity to replenish strategic oil reserves and thus temporarily relieve pressure on fuel costs while weakening Iran’s negotiating hand.

“The memorandum of understanding was essentially a respite for Trump to try to get what he wanted, which is to take control of the strait or take it away from Iran,” Nasr said. “Trump is trying to take away that authority before they can start negotiations, so they are in no position to resist his demands on the nuclear issue or any other issue.

“Iran also gambled that it would use the 60 days to gain some economic relief by bringing imports into the country and at the same time strengthen its position. As a result, there may have been a miscalculation. But there is no misunderstanding.”

“Trump may have overestimated what he could do militarily, and he falls short again [and decides] ‘I need to arrange something else.’ Iranians also exaggerate how much resistance they can resist. “This is something neither side knows.”

The potential for miscalculation is exacerbated by the absence of Iran experts in the Trump administration.

Swanson – who says it is He was forcibly removed from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs The post followed a critical tweet from right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, who blamed the shortage on secretary of state Marco Rubio, who she said had “physically removed” key staff.

“I’ve been surprised by some of the leaks that have emerged about the decision-making process in this war; Rubio was reportedly skeptical of the regime change goals the Israelis were proposing to Trump, but then said nothing,” said Swanson, who now serves on the Atlantic Council. “It basically neutralized [state] department, then remains silent [but] Afterwards, he tries to clear his name privately.

Instead of seasoned Iran experts, Trump relied on his tried and trusted negotiating team; namely Steve Witkoff, his chief envoy, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and finally Vance, who initially opposed the decision to go to war and played a key role in the MoU negotiations.

“That’s how he fundamentally misunderstood his opponent,” he said Alex VatankaHe is a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC. “Expertise would have been useful to the President, he could have actually listened to the people who are following this Iranian system and told him, ‘They’re not New York businessmen. They’re made of a different kind of DNA.’

“Trump now has an enemy who is prepared to suffer much more than he realizes. They are willing to risk playing the Strait of Hormuz card because it makes them responsible for a large portion of the global energy supply and holds some of the richest countries in the Gulf hostage.”

Iran’s readiness to gamble could push Trump to raise the stakes even higher and raise the possibility of further escalation, including a land invasion.

Regime change – a target openly sought by assassination at the beginning of the war Ayatollah Ali KhameneiThe arrival of the religious leader in the first hours, followed by other important figures, seems off the table for now.

Last week’s funeral for Khamenei, whose body passed through large crowds in various Iranian cities before being buried at the Mashhad mausoleum, is widely seen as an effort by the regime to restore popular unity and legitimacy in the face of external threats to its existence.

Vatanka warned of a possible five- or 10-year conflict, with Iran eager to retaliate against US Gulf allies such as the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and even Oman, whom the regime has portrayed as “collaborators” with Washington.

“You can imagine the United States bombing Iran repeatedly over weeks and months,” he said. “But looking at the current situation, I don’t know how Trump will defeat the regime militarily unless he wants to invade the region.”

One of the other options could be invasion. Kharg IslandIt is the center of Iran’s crude oil export business.

However, it was argued that such a move would have limited benefit. Joseph VotelA retired US general and former head of US Central Command during Trump’s first presidency said an effective strategy must include diplomacy, including reaching out to NATO allies whom the US president has repeatedly insulted.

“It’s important that we focus on reducing the points of influence that Iran has,” Votel said. Some of these can be done through offensive military operations. Others can be done with more defensive measures.

“We see a constant fight regarding military operations. We shoot, they shoot. This brings me to the following conclusion: This will probably take weeks to months. “A lot of strategic patience is required and there is a lot of risk involved.”