Analysis-Trump threatens new Iran escalation and risks repeating old mistakes
By Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON, July 16 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump has stepped up U.S. airstrikes against Iran and threatened to further escalate tensions, but there is little sign that the military strategy that has failed to win concessions from Tehran will succeed this time.
With the collapse of a temporary ceasefire agreement reached a month ago, Trump finds himself in a bind as he tries to break Iran’s grip on the vital Strait of Hormuz and force Tehran to accept his demands.
While both sides have so far avoided a return to full-scale conflict, hopes of finding a way out anytime soon have been dimmed by the crisis that has sent global oil prices soaring again and sending shockwaves through financial markets.
As tit-for-tat attacks continued for a sixth day on Thursday, Iran signaled that it could encourage its Houthi allies in Yemen to close another key oil shipping strait – Bab al-Mandeb at the mouth of the Red Sea – if Washington strikes Iran’s energy infrastructure as Trump has threatened.
Signaling growing frustration, Trump spoke with aides and in some cases spoke publicly about expanding targets to include power plants and bridges, sending ground forces to seize Iran’s Kharg Island oil hub and bombing a deep underground nuclear-related site known as Kazma Mountain.
Some of these options may be unrealistic due to the high risks and potential for domestic and geopolitical backlash. He had made similar threats before but backed down.
But most analysts agree that a major U.S. escalation — short of a dangerous and politically untenable ground invasion to oust Iran’s rulers — would have little chance of being any more effective in forcing Iran to change course than earlier stages of the 4-1/2-month war, when U.S.-Israeli strikes killed senior leaders and severely damaged military capabilities.
“There is no reason to believe that this latest series of attacks, or whatever the president has in mind, will force the Iranians to change their thinking,” said Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy intelligence officer for the Middle East who now works at the Atlantic Council think tank. “Perhaps they are more likely to consolidate their position.”
Responding to questions from Reuters, a senior Trump administration official said the president’s preference was diplomacy, but “the only language Iran understands is military force” and that the United States would continue to hold Iran responsible for “terrorist actions” in the strait.
THE INTERIM AGREEMENT IS BEING DISSOLVED
The unraveling of the deal comes as Trump faces pressure to end a war that has killed thousands of people, mostly in Iran and Lebanon, caused economic woes at home and lowered his approval ratings ahead of midterm elections in November.
Negotiations aimed at turning the interim agreement into a permanent peace agreement have stalled despite hints of diplomatic action. Trump welcomed what he described as the release of a US citizen detained in Iran, but Iran’s judiciary has denied that any prisoners were released or exchanged.
Trump may be hoping to bring Iran back to the negotiating table by bombing it over its nuclear program, which he has identified as his main war target. But at the root of the latest hostilities lie different interpretations of what the preliminary agreement means for control of the strait, which Iran has shown during the war could stop a fifth of world oil shipments.
Iran sees itself taking a role in managing the waterway, possibly by demanding fees or tolls, while the United States and its allies in the Gulf insist on a return to free passage. Most experts see little sign that Tehran will make the concessions Trump wants.
Tehran’s resumption of attacks on shipping in recent days – which the White House on Thursday called a violation of the interim agreement – has triggered the latest US response, including the resumption of a blockade of Iranian ports.
Washington also revoked an exemption that allowed Iran to sell oil internationally, rolling back one of its gains under the interim agreement.
Three US officials told Reuters that the wave of US strikes could serve to “shape operations” and give Trump more options by targeting Iranian military capabilities that the US would want destroyed before taking bigger steps.
Iran, on the other hand, signaled that it was ready to expand the war and warned that it could hit the civilian facilities of US allies in the Gulf if Trump escalates tensions further. It maintains a significant arsenal of missiles and drones.
RED SEA ROUTE IS IN THREAT
Tehran has also asked Yemen’s Houthis to be prepared to block the Red Sea oil route if the United States strikes Iran’s energy infrastructure, posing a powerful new threat to global energy supplies, especially since some shipments have been diverted to the Red Sea, three sources told Reuters.
But Mark Dubowitz, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hardline anti-Iran think tank in Washington, wrote to
Some analysts have suggested that Trump, who campaigned for a second term on promises to avoid foreign interventions and focus on Americans’ economic concerns, could make the same mistakes he made when he launched the war on February 28.
He did this with little explanation of his reasons or a clear exit strategy.
But the senior US administration official backtracked, insisting that it was US military and economic pressure that brought Iran to the table to negotiate the memorandum of understanding, which has since escalated into renewed hostilities.
Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies and a former Israeli military intelligence officer, told X: “Iran’s leadership is unlikely to surrender, no matter how much pressure the administration applies or how many new threats it presents.”
“If President Trump continues to expand his target set, Tehran is likely to respond in kind,” he wrote.
(Reporting by Matt Spetalnick, Editing by Don Durfee and Sanjeev Miglani)
