Contributor: Trump may not know what he wants or why he started this war
Depending on who you ask, the US war against Iran is either designed increasing the country’s military capability to its knees Or pave the way for the Iranian people to take over their own government. President Trump, whose presidential campaigns promised to end the kind of regime-change wars that have constrained U.S. resources in the past, is torn between ousting the mullahs in Tehran and returning what remains of Iran’s leadership to the negotiating table on his own terms.
What we know for sure is that the Middle East is now in a regional war with no end in sight.
When Trump ordered the bombing of Iran’s three main nuclear facilities in June, the goal was clear and limited: to reduce Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and extend the time Tehran needs to obtain a nuclear weapon. Today’s operations are much more comprehensive, with a target set that includes everything from Iran’s political leadership to ballistic missile sites, from air defense systems to the Iranian navy. Embers refused to exclude U.S. troops are on the ground and operations could last four to five weeks, he said. USA and Israel attacked More than 2,000 targets We were in Iran on the first day of duty. The death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s top decision-maker for the last 37 years, in a joint US-Israeli attack reveals how determined both states are to crush Iran until one of two things happens: The regime will capitulate to Trump’s demands or completely disintegrate.
But the Iranians have some cards to play. While Tehran cannot compete with the United States or Israel in the traditional sense, it is capable of causing enough chaos in the region that it could force other states to lobby Trump to cut the war short.
While Iran’s response to last year’s American attack was symbolic and choreographed, its retaliation to date has been indiscriminate. High-rise buildings in Bahrain were hit by Iranian drones. Missiles continue to rain down on Israel. Saudi Arabia’s state oil company Aramco suspended operations on March 2 after an oil storage facility was hit. Iran’s drone attack also put a strain on Qatar, one of the world’s largest producers of liquefied natural gas. It will close its largest export facility. Meanwhile, shipping companies are staying away from the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway in the Persian Gulf through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil passes, as a precaution.
The fundamental question hovering over all these rapid developments: Is there a way out of this conflict?
The answer depends on what the Trump administration is up to. Unfortunately, the White House is very confused on this issue, which suggests that Trump either does not know what he wants even as the war continues, or that internal debate in the lead-up to the conflict was woefully inadequate. Both scenarios are bad.
If the goal of the war is to completely eliminate Iran’s leadership and replace it with a more obedient group of officials, then Washington is likely to be disappointed with the outcome. Khamenei and several dozen Iranian military commanders may be gone, but the supreme leader There was a succession plan This almost guarantees that the regime will survive after his death. Sooner or later a new religious leader will be elected.
Unlike Venezuela after the capture of dictator Nicolás Maduro, Iran is more insulated from US pressure tactics: It does not share the same hemisphere with the US; the oil industry is less sensitive to the types of de facto embargoes the United States imposes on Venezuela; Iran’s political institutions are still functioning properly. Air power only Unlikely to lead to regime collapse in Tehran – and even if it were, no one can say with certainty that this would be better for US interests.
If the United States is simply trying to weaken Iran’s military power, this can certainly be done in the short term, as the Iranians have learned. But in the long run, this will be the definition of a never-ending task. Just as it did after last summer’s 12-day war, Iran will inevitably rebuild its military capabilities as the United States completes its air campaign. This is especially true regarding missiles, the component of Iran’s armed forces that could pose the greatest risk to US troops and Israel. If he chooses this path, Trump will be committing the US military to periodic US bombing operations, with all the associated costs and risks.
What about negotiations? If Trump interested in returning to diplomacy If Iran has its way, the negotiations could provide Washington and Tehran with a way out of endless war. But this is not as simple as it seems. First, Trump’s goals remain as maximalist today as they were before U.S. and Iranian negotiators sat down for talks last month: an end to Iran’s enrichment, no more support for proxy groups in the region, capitulation on missiles, and a 180-degree turn in Iran’s foreign policy. As long as these demands persist, the Iranians will have little reason to return to the table and may gamble to prolong the war in the hope that Washington’s Arab partners will pressure Trump to agree to a ceasefire.
There is another serious obstacle to the negotiations: Iran has been burned three times by Trump before. In 2018, Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal despite Tehran fulfilling its end of the bargain. In June, Trump agreed to support Israel’s war against Iran, although US negotiators were scheduled to resume talks days later. A similar story happened this time too. His envoys were scheduled to return to the table within a week before Trump opted to use force. So Iranians have reason to be extremely skeptical of Trump’s entreaties.
“We have negotiated with the United States twice in the last 12 months, and on both occasions they attacked us in the middle of negotiations, and this has become a very painful experience for us,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said. said ABC News on Sunday.
Trump remains confident of victory. It would be nice if he explained what victory meant.
Daniel R. DePetris is a Defense Priorities fellow and foreign affairs columnist..
