Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for freeRelated: Anduril’s New Space…
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the worldRelated: The Sound of Intimidation…
Before long, Donald Trump will signal the termination of his conflict with Iran. The timing of that moment will be less dictated by whether his objective is fulfilled (whatever that may be) than by the extent of suffering he can tolerate. We can reasonably presume that Iran’s capacity for adversity surpasses his. Trump will nonetheless portray his withdrawal as a triumph. Iran will possess ample motivation to guarantee that his claims are widely doubted. This constitutes the core of his self-imposed quandary.
Foreseeing this scenario would have greatly benefited Trump. One crucial measure would have been to augment America’s national oil stockpiles, which plummeted after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and were not subsequently refilled. Oil and natural gas prices might have surged, but proactive measures always yield greater benefits than reactive solutions. A second step would have been to secure the prior approval and support of the Gulf monarchies for his military strategy. The absence of a clear objective on his part rendered that challenging. Now, he contends with an ever more discontented Gulf region. A third would have involved conditioning the US citizenry for an extended military campaign. The same applies there.
A key query is whether Trump now comprehends the pitfalls of insufficient foresight. If he were capable of adapting and learning, he would understand that even a significantly weakened Iran can persist in intimidating crude carriers from the Gulf and halt a substantial portion of the region’s energy output. Without a full occupation of Iran, Trump cannot ensure secure transit in the Strait of Hormuz. Drone manufacturing is dispersed and challenging to eliminate through aerial means.
Furthermore, Trump is unable to personally select Iran’s next governing body. Commentators have noted it took America two decades to replace the Taliban with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Trump’s actions effectively resulted in one Khamenei being succeeded by another in just over a week. Since Mojtaba, the new supreme leader, is perceived as more extremist than his father, Trump will likely find no success in brokering an Iranian truce, much less an “unconditional capitulation”. This predicament presents him with two exceptionally perilous courses of action.
The initial option would be to deploy US or Israeli special forces to Isfahan to confiscate the residual portion of Iran’s 400-kilogram store of enriched uranium. Achieving this would provide Trump with an impressive exit strategy. Truly, the allure of a rapid strike that upends the Taco narrative (Trump always chickens out) might prove overpowering. Casting a shadow over such an attempt is the specter of Jimmy Carter. His unsuccessful 1980 Iranian hostage liberation effort contributed to the downfall of his presidential term. Given his frequent declarations of Iran’s nuclear program’s destruction, Trump could not withstand a similar failure.
His alternative strategy would involve seizing Iran’s Kharg island to halt its petroleum shipments. This action might prove considerably more hazardous because it would necessitate a significantly larger deployment of US personnel than a special forces operation — and for a far greater duration. It would severely curtail Iran’s primary income stream and exacerbate the global oil crisis. However, its balance of risk versus potential gain appears imprudent. After barely a week, popular backing for Trump’s Iranian conflict stands at a comparable level to that for the Vietnam War in late 1967, after over 11,000 American fatalities. The US public today has no patience for even a modest count of casualties. Therefore, Taco — “Trump always chickens out” — becomes a matter of timing.
Trump would still incur a substantial cost for a self-proclaimed triumph. The primary danger is the absence of any meaningful outcome. Upon his withdrawal, the US president would have revealed to Iran his critical vulnerability: escalating energy costs. Iran, too, holds influence over the termination of this confrontation. It would possess ample justification to perpetuate its destabilization of worldwide energy supplies as a deterrent to Trump from altering his strategy. Iran has now been subjected to Israeli assaults four times within the last twenty-four months — on two occasions with the United States under Trump spearheading the effort. Iran will seek to increase the penalties for a renewed escalation in the coming months.
The Iranian regime’s most certain path to security would be to develop nuclear weapons. While effective intelligence can continue dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, that is not a guaranteed outcome. Iran’s rationale for rapidly achieving North Korea’s nuclear standing will be persuasive. Others, notably Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, might be inclined to assist. Governments globally are undertaking similar assessments with renewed urgency.
Among the irreparable harms inflicted by Trump is the undermining of trust in the United States. Well after crude costs have steadied, the global community will remember his administration’s pride in the portrayal of “deadliness”, as his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, terms it. Trump opted for conflict and has derived clear gratification from his authority over matters of life and demise. Armed conflict represents a solemn measure to be taken only once every alternative has been depleted. It is widely recognized that Trump possessed alternative strategies. His preference for this particular path is difficult to disregard.
edward.luce@ft.com