In a less charitable—and probably correct—view, President Trump went to war with Iran over a misguided belief in it. He believed that the worst conditions have prevented past presidents from attacking Iran it would not come true for himbecause he is Donald Trump.
In a more charitable—and probably correct—view, the president had reason to believe that all the dire warnings about the more hair-raising consequences of an attack would not come true this time. The 12-day war, which Israel and the United States fought last June, demonstrated that they can strike Iran without triggering catastrophic retaliation. Having endured attacks against the country’s military infrastructure, and then being rocked by wave after wave of protests by its own citizens, the Islamic Republic was isolated and weakened. So why shouldn’t Trump use that weakness to land a death blow against a murderous enemy?
I could almost be satisfied with these arguments, except that almost no other foreign policy question has been studied more intensively in the past 20 years or so than the potential impact of a US military attack on Iran. The years spent contemplating and preparing for a possible attack on Iran are the reason that the first days of the war were, for the most part, a bold display of American power. Yet all that research also pointed to risks: rising oil prices, the spread of violence in the Middle East, civilian casualties of the kind now evidenced by an apparent US missile strike near an Iranian elementary school. When past presidents balked at the possibility of war with Iran, they weren’t just avoiding a hard choice; they were restrained by all the obvious reasons that conflicts could dangerously break out. No one should be shocked that expectations are now being fulfilled.
To begin with, there is geography. Only 35 miles long at its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf to the rest of the world and is surrounded on three sides by Iran. One-fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas-liquids supply goes through Turkey. Fighting for its survival, Iran has the ability to disrupt oil markets by launching sporadic attacks on passing ships, preventing companies and their insurers from justifying the risk. The hard facts of geography will always be the hard facts of war.
Another formidable obstacle to victory is the nature of Iran’s regime, a theocratic regime that celebrates martyrdom and has spent its entire history preparing for what it sees as an inevitable war with the United States. Every time protests fill public squares, I allow myself to believe that the terrible government in Tehran will crumble. But his willingness to kill to live is the biggest obstacle to his downfall. And Trump intervened after the regime killed tens of thousands of its most determined enemies. The call for revolution after the revolution has been suppressed is delayed, to say the least. Perhaps the Trump administration will succeed in further weakening Iran’s hegemony—the attacks will undoubtedly set back the country’s already faltering economy—so that after the bombs stop falling, the regime’s opponents will rush into the streets. But, so far, the beheading of the regime has only succeeded in replacing one Ayatullah Khamenei with another. In any case, the son is no less fanatic than his father and believes with theological certainty that the most brutal means justify his righteous goals.
Because air power cannot eliminate government, the important question was always “How will this end?” The lesson the Trump administration seemed to learn from the failed plans for Iraq after the war is that planning is not worth the effort. Asked what’s next, Trump can only manage several conflicting answers, sometimes in the span of a single sentence. But the most likely of these responses is that the administration finds a group in the government ready to cut a deal in favor of the United States, Iran’s version of Delcy Rodríguez—the Venezuelan official who quietly discussed the survival of his government after the American forces captured Nicolás Maduro. Such a result would undercut every promise Trump made to protesters about aid being on the way. It is not encouraging that the administration does not have an acceptable candidate for this job after almost two weeks of conflict—and that the current administration has not started calling for peace, even though it is fighting for survival.
By touting unattainable goals—unconditional surrender, regime change—as his war aims, Trump has given his enemies an opportunity to claim survival as victory. He has left himself with no final destination for what he recently called “a short trip.” If he wanted to weaken Iran’s ballistic missile threat–a worthwhile goal–he could have focused US strikes on launch sites and production sites. Just as he did after attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities last year, Trump could announce that small target and walk away victorious a few days later. Or he could allow Israel to launch an attack, with the help of the United States, which could have little defeat in the Gulf. If he wanted to overthrow the regime, he would help organize and support the opposition, develop and distribute the movement to better prepare it for success. Instead, Trump ignored the obvious and went to war. Now it is obvious that he wants to take revenge.
