OPINION:
On Feb. 28, President Trump announced that American and Israeli forces had commenced major combat against Iran. He laid out his three objectives: a nuclear-free Iran, a reduction of its ballistic missile program and a stop to Iran’s support of terrorist groups in the region.
Mr. Trump said he expected the entire operation to wrap up in five to six weeks. Eight months later and the conflict has no end in sight.
The U.S. is not actively attacking Iran at this point, but the Islamic regime is hitting or claiming to hit unarmed cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz every night. The U.S. military succeeded in restarting shipping traffic in the strait after months of a virtual standstill, though Iran-instigated instability throughout the region has kept oil prices high.
People were interested in these podcasts
I’ve spent more than 100 days so far this year in the Middle East and affected areas. I have had conversations daily with people aligned with the Iranian government, as well as from neighboring countries such as Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and more. I sat down one-on-one with some of the key mediators in the conflict, including the foreign ministers of Oman and Egypt and the staff of Pakistan’s field marshal. I have quite literally been immersed in the conflict.
What has become painfully obvious is that Mr. Trump has only three options as he decides the next steps regarding Iran.
The first option is to continue the status quo: announcing a preference for diplomacy, occasionally threatening military action and spending billions of dollars using our military to escort cargo ships through the strait and trying to put out fires as they arise in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the Red Sea.
Iran ignites all those fires, of course. It can’t win a straight-up military battle against the mighty U.S., but as it has demonstrated, it can change world economic markets, attack neighboring countries, sink unarmed civilian cargo vessels and support groups such as the Houthis in Yemen. In short, Iran’s response is to cause chaos, and it’s quite gifted at it.
Despite Mr. Trump’s best intentions at diplomacy, Iran’s idea of compromise is to offer nothing. Twice it offered to open the Strait of Hormuz. Once for the Day 40 ceasefire and once as part of the Day 100 memorandum of understanding. Neither time did it actually open the strait to cargo traffic. Even if it had, that would simply have returned things to the pre-Feb. 28 situation with no offers of compromise on nukes, missiles or support for its proxy groups.
This should surprise no one. Iran’s idea of diplomacy is to offer something outrageous and then accuse their opposition of being unserious when the offer is inevitably declined.
Iran has no elections for Supreme Leader. There is no critical media taking the country’s leadership to task. Protesters run the risk of death for speaking out. There is no accountability for Iran’s government. If the 90 million people of Iran go hungry, or go without power or live under the threat of a military attack, the leadership quite literally does not care as long as it stays in power.
I should also mention that Iran is notorious for violating the terms of any agreement it enters.
For those reasons, the status quo approach of hoping for diplomatic success is destined to fail. It could go on for years, but it’s like hoping to score a touchdown, only to realize the other team is playing basketball. There are no winners and no losers if you aren’t playing the same game. That’s Iran.
Mr. Trump’s second option is to pull the plug. The economic impact of the war cost Republicans dearly at the ballot box, and the ripple effect of that election defeat could be enormous, including changing the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 30 years. Should the president consider giving a primetime television speech telling America he heard voters’ message and is calling home the troops immediately?
Many Americans would cheer that choice, but in less than 24 hours, the media and Mr. Trump’s political opponents would shift the discussion to “Trump’s failed war.” They would talk about the nearly two dozen lives lost in combat, the tens of billions spent, the damage to America’s reputation, the hundreds of billions of dollars’ impact on world markets and all the other things they perceive as wasted if Mr. Trump leaves Iran without any of his three stated objectives being achieved.
It is also important to note that Iran would portray this option as a victory and potentially be more powerful and more dangerous than ever.
Mr. Trump would surely claim that his offensive crippled any hopes Iran may have had for a nuclear weapons program, but if that was true in March, why were troops kept in the region until now? If he withdraws now, an unfriendly media will ensure the Iran war is remembered as a total failure and likely define his legacy.
The third option is to restart the war with such overwhelming force as to oust the sitting regime.
As mentioned above, no amount of discomfort to the Iranian people will bring about a surrender from the existing leadership, so in addition to wiping out energy infrastructure, oil refinery capabilities and simply devastating the nation’s ability to operate on a daily basis, the U.S. military would need to kill Iran’s leadership, top to bottom, three or four deep in each position. It would need to seize control of certain areas and assets.
The U.S. armed forces could certainly do this, but at what cost? Tens of billions more dollars, probably thousands of innocent Iranian lives, surely some U.S. military casualties. Ground troops would likely become a necessity at some point. Even if all three of Mr. Trump’s objectives announced in February are achieved, would the world see it as a victory?
The other question is what would come next? Who would take control in a broken Iran? Would it be militias and terror groups? Would it be one of the Iranian expatriate groups waiting in European countries? How sure are we that the Iranian people would accept whatever government the West supported? A fall of the regime might ensure no nukes nor support for terror groups, but would Iran itself turn into a tinderbox of constant chaos?
To their credit, both Mr. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance acknowledged that the war with Iran and the economic impact of that conflict had the greatest influence on their party’s defeat. That acknowledgment is important, but it leaves unanswered the question of what to do in Iran now.
Each of the three options has different consequences for America and for the world. Each shapes the Trump legacy differently. Each has clear downsides.
Will Mr. Trump go all in? Will he pull completely out? Or will he make no decision at all in hopes of a diplomatic solution that isn’t going to materialize?
Regrettably at this point, those are the only three options available.
Follow the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.