In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
President Donald Trump’s deal to end the war with Iran is very likely to be weak in form and effect. In reaching his memorandum of understanding with the Islamic Republic, Trump is making the same mistake he made in starting this war: acting without clarity of purpose or due consideration for the risks of his course of action.
Recommended Stories
Although the exact terms of the peace deal remain unclear, reports suggest it will include unfreezing billions of dollars in Iranian assets (much the same as former President Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear accord), ending the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports (which was causing massive damage to the Iranian regime and economy), and granting Iran both sanctions relief and up to $300 billion in reconstruction financing. In return, Iran will reopen the Strait of Hormuz energy chokepoint and enter 60 days of negotiations to address its nuclear program. All of this looks very generous from an Iranian perspective.
For the United States and its allies, big challenges lie ahead.
According to the U.S. intelligence community, Iran is unlikely to make serious concessions in the ensuing negotiations. Israel fears Trump will now pressure it to avoid future strikes on Hezbollah in Lebanon and inside Iran. Middle Eastern allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates will also worry that the agreement will embolden Iran toward future brinkmanship. Their fears are understandable. After all, Iran’s more hard-line regime will surely take Trump’s generous terms as a sign that America will tolerate much to avoid a new Hormuz crisis.
Those who supported this war as a slam dunk are now slamming into the reality of their self-delusions. I speak, here, not of those who supported military action on the basis of Iran’s nuclear and terrorist threats, but rather of opinion shapers such as Mark Levin and Marc Thiessen, who have long claimed that the war was being and could be won with hard-headed choices. Their claims that the war was proceeding overwhelmingly favorably, that Trump was resolute, and that the U.S. held all the cards in diplomacy have now been proven false.
The truth is that this war failed to achieve its objective of either removing the Iranian regime or critically weakening it. Resuming military action was not going to achieve these objectives anytime soon.
Proponents of the war point to the very significant degradation of Iran’s military components of power. Still, portraying these effects as evidence of a strategic victory is to replicate the McNamara fallacy of overreliance on battlefield metrics to draw definitive strategic conclusions. Estimates suggest that Iran retains at least 20% of its missile portfolio, for example, with possibly more missiles recoverable once bombed storage sites are excavated. Iran is also estimated to retain at least 40% of its drone force and large numbers of anti-ship missiles to hold the Strait of Hormuz at risk. U.S. intelligence reporting further suggests that Iran is rapidly rebuilding its industrial capacity. Trump’s impending influx of peace-for-cash will surely catalyze these efforts.
As an emboldened Iran crows, Trump is now deriding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with profanity-laden insults. While this is unseemly, Trump only has himself to blame for failing to recognize the distinction between Israeli and U.S. strategic interests in Iran. Israel viewed the war as a way to finally destroy its Iranian revolutionary nemesis. And while Trump plainly sought regime change — you do not kill the Iranian supreme leader and Iran’s senior leadership if you have limited objectives — he was never nearly as committed to that outcome. Instead, Trump began this war for two impulsive reasons.
First, because he was emboldened by the success of the quick, clean operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Second, because he was convinced by Netanyahu that the Iranian regime was weak and would implode under U.S. and Israeli air power. Put simply, Trump allowed his impulse for decisive action to distract him from the complexities and risks of military action. Trump did what he has so often attacked former President George W. Bush for doing: He launched a “stupid war.”
The costs of neglecting the risks of war are now clear.
The risks, as outlined by the U.S. intelligence community, that Netanyahu was exaggerating that fragility of the Iranian regime, that the U.S. would struggle to deal with any Iranian effort to close the Strait of Hormuz, that a regime change focused war would greatly harm America’s means of addressing China’s far more consequential threat, and that the U.S. would undermine its global credibility by alienating allies and partners via the war’s inflation of energy prices, are now born out.
And now, the Islamic Republic of Iran retains power atop the rubble of Trump’s diplomatic resolve.
WILL TRUMP BRACE OR BLINK WHEN VLADIMIR PUTIN ESCALATES?
Historians will likely suggest that Trump should have focused military action on the narrower objective of degrading Iran’s nuclear threat. But more than anything, historians will likely use this war, and the nature of its end, as a textbook example of Trump’s penchant for acting without due regard for what comes next.
Contemplating future military operations, let’s hope Trump now recognizes that boldness and clarity are both required for effective strategy.
