The Whims of War – Part 3

I began this series of articles with George Santayana’s admonition that "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” That warning seemed apropos with respect to President Trump who reads little and professes that he knows more than those who do. These traits undoubtedly underlie his decision to ignore both the advice of his top military commander as well as the Constitutional requirement that Congressional approval be obtained for all declarations of war. Had he sought Congressional approval for his current “Iran Excursion”, the pros and cons of that undertaking would have been carefully considered and the disaster that lies ahead might have been avoided. My fears that this war is going to end badly were further raised when I discovered that Trump and the other members of his administration were unable to agree on the objectives of their war, much less how and when those objectives might be achieved. As more fully explained below, what was first advertised as a four to six week conflict has seemingly put the U.S. on a path to yet another “forever war.”

The war has now been in progress for a little over three weeks and some things are starting to become clearer. The President’s original objective seems to have been to replace Iran’s current leader with one or more individuals willing to guide their nation as he directs. This is what he successfully achieved by kidnapping Venezuela’s President. He now seems to have reluctantly concluded that replacing Iran’s current regime will require a full-scale land war similar to the costly one mounted by George W. Bush to topple Sadam Hussein in Iraq. It also appears that President Trump has set aside the idea of putting an end to Iran’s effort to develop nuclear weapons which would also require sending ground forces into Iran, not to mention the problems associated with locating and safely removing Iran’s estimated 400+ kilograms of 60% enriched uranium. 

Faced with these realities, last Friday, Trump telegraphed that he would end the U.S.’s participation in the war once he had decimated Iran’s ability to sow havoc throughout the Middle East. He did this by proclaiming that he could end the war anytime he chose. A day later, however, he appeared to have realized that even that plan was also not without problems. That’s because the two other participants in this war may not simply allow him to unilaterally call a halt to the war he had commenced. In short, while it may take two to tango, it only takes one nation to start or prolong a war.

At the war’s outset President Trump was wholly in agreement with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plan to remove Ali Khamenei as Iran’s Supreme Leader. They jointly pursued this objective by bombing the facility in which Khamenei was holding a meeting of his top aides. Since most of Iran’s leadership survived that effort, Israel’s objective seems to now be focused on destroying Iran’s threat to Israel’s continued existence. This is evidenced by Israel’s having continued to attack Iran’s military leaders and Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Yemen. This goal was also expressed yesterday by Dr. Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., when he was interviewed by Dana Bash. Thus, there’s no assurance that Israel will cease its attacks on Iran just because President Trump determines that continuing the war is not in his best interest. Equally important, unless and until Iran’s military capabilities are rendered non-viable, Iran will still be able to wreak havoc throughout the Middle East (including attacking U.S. facilities) which would require the U.S. to remain involved.

Also critical in determining when the war might be brought to an end is the necessity of reopening the Strait of Hormuz so that the world’s economy can continue to function. That’s because the developed nations depend heavily on the Persian Gulf countries for the petroleum, natural gas and fertilizer they need to power their economies. The good news is that Iran is currently permitting ships heading for China, India, Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, Iraq and South Africa to pass through the Strait but not permitting ships heading for other nations to do so. 

President Trump has repeatedly sought the assistance of NATO countries to help the U.S. reopen the Strait to all commercial traffic; however, his entreaties are being ignored if not rejected. That’s a significant problem for Trump because it would take the U.S. acting alone a few weeks to move its forces to a place where they would be able to compel the reopening of the Strait. In fact, it would probably take even longer to restore the pre-war level of traffic through the Strait. During that period the American public would be facing shortages of critical products (not just gasoline) and higher prices for which Trump and the Republican Party would be blamed.

You have undoubtedly heard the President say that Americans will not be affected by Iran’s blockade because the U.S. produces more oil than it consumes. This is misleading because much of the oil produced in the U.S. is not suitable for processing here, which means that we still have to import a significant amount of crude oil. More importantly, the price of oil is set internationally so that price increases that directly impact the rest of the world are also felt in the U.S.

Still another problem is that reopening the Strait is going to require additional military personnel and additional Congressional appropriations. This has prompted Defense Secretary Hegseth to order the deployment of up to 2,500 marines in addition to the 2,500 already on their way to the Persian Gulf. He has also called for Congress to appropriate an additional $200 billion to complete military action in Iran. For a Republican controlled Congress with a significant “America First” constituencies and a distinct dislike for a burgeoning fiscal deficit, these proposals are a “heavy lift.”

In the meantime it has also become increasingly clear that not all of President Trump’s advisers were wholly on board with his military operations in Iran. Before the war was even commenced, General Caine warned President Trump that the plan to attack Iran posed some serious problems. More outspoken was Joe Kent, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned because he wholly disagreed with initiating a war against Iran. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (and Kent’s boss), was also forced to admit when she testified before Congress that she thought the war was ill-advised. 

These developments leave President Trump in a race against time as it will take several weeks to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic to the point that a global recession can be avoided. This could trigger a further downturn in the U.S. economy which would likely assure a resounding defeat for Republicans in the fall elections. This places pressure on Trump to find a way to enable more commercial traffic to pass through the Strait and to achieve that goal quickly. 

There are, of course, corresponding pressures on the Iranian government as Iran has been badly damaged by the aerial attacks being carried out by U.S. and Israeli forces. While the Iranian government is not subject to significant pressure from its citizens, it still must find a way to keep its economy vibrant while many of its important military and commercial facilities are being destroyed. Thus, its problem is simply to find a way to continue to resist the military attacks of the U.S. and Israel and the entreaties from the surrounding Gulf states that are pressuring it to negotiate a peace agreement. The odds are that it will succeed because the Iranian regime faced similar external pressures in its war with Iraq and is accustomed to enduring hardships.

To be sure, President Trump doesn’t accept defeat easily, much less gracefully. Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions universally embrace the Law of Retaliation (Lat. Lex Talionis) which stipulates: “An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth.” This mandate is generally interpreted to mean that retribution should be measured so that it’s equal in detriment to the act that precipitated it. While Trump has recently demonstrated that he is a strong believer in retribution (just ask James Coney and Letitia James), he has developed his own interpretation of Lex Talionis; namely, “If you hit me, I will hit you back twice as hard.” Accordingly, this weekend he issued the following ultimatum: “If Tehran does not ‘fully open’ the Hormuz channel within 48 hours, the U.S. ‘will hit and obliterate’ Iranian power plants.” He obviously is not bothered by the fact that destroying power plants is considered a war crime.

This stratagem failed as the Iranian regime quickly responded that if the U.S. attacks its power facilities Iran would retaliate by bombing similar facilities in Israel. Trump then hastily proceeded to Plan B, announcing this morning that he had been engaged in peace discussions with “well respected Iranians” for the past two days and that they were so promising that he has decided to defer further attacks on Iran’s power facilities for another five days. The Iranian regime quickly countered that no such negotiation had taken place with it. Still, Trump’s announcement was sufficient to send oil prices tumbling and the Dow Jones Industrial average up several hundred points. As a result, Trump must be congratulating himself not just for the improved economic changes but also for having bought another five days in which to devise a way to actually extricate himself (and our nation) from the mess he has created. On the other hand, the Mullahs running the Iranian government Iran are undoubtedly delirious that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has been pushed back another five days moving the world closer to a global recession and Trump and his party closer to an ignominious defeat in the fall elections, all without bombs being dropped in its power facilities.

While it is still possible that Congressional Republicans (or at least a sufficient number of them) will rise up in opposition to a further expansion of the war, it’s not clear whether (or even when) that will occur. At the very least President Trump will berate and threaten those Republicans that break ranks; however. my guess is that sufficient Congressional Republicans will honor Trump’s demands as they have done so often in the past. Nevertheless, I believe the safer bet is that Iran will outlast President Trump in this high-stakes game of “Chicken” and that relatively shortly Trump will call off the war and declare victory. Should that happen, he will also cast blame on the Democrats in the Congress for allowing Iran to grow so strong that even sustained aerial attacks proved insufficient to bring an end to Iran’s lawless regime.

Remaining unanswered is just why our “America First” President who has vowed to end our nation’s participation in foreign wars chose to disregard his repeated campaign pledges in order to join Israel in declaring and prosecuting a war against Iran. Many Jews in this period of high antisemitism are reluctant to blame Israel for leading Trump into this ill-conceived war. Others will contend that war with Iran was inevitable and that it’s best that it is taking place before Iran completes its development of nuclear weapons. While it’s debatable whether the conflict with Iran should take place now or later, there is little doubt that Israel was highly instrumental in getting Trump to join it in starting the war.

There is no question that Israel convinced Trump to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities last year and has spent the past year systematically attacking Iran’s proxies organizations. Thus, when choosing to attack Iran again it’s only logical that Israel would want to ally itself with a nation with unmatched military power to help it carry out its quest to destroy Iran’s military capabilities. The more interesting question is how Benjamin Netanyahu was able to convince Trump to start a war halfway around the world against a nation to that posed no immediate threat to the United States.

The obvious answer is that Netanyahu must have advised Trump that the threat posed by Iran extended to all of the nations on the Earth because Iran was still trying to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of reaching them. While most arms experts agreed that these threats were still years away, Netanyahu undoubtedly had to cast doubt on their assessments and argue that Iran’s ability to resist demand for “total surrender” would undoubtedly increase as it got closer to completing the development of those two strategic programs. Netanyahu must have also convinced Trump that the level of discontent among Iran’s citizens was currently at an all-time high following the ruling regime’s recent massacre of over 7,000 individuals who had been protesting against it. He probably also whetted Trump’s appetite for war by suggesting that by bringing about regime change in Iran, Trump (unlike Obama) would end Iran’s 40 years of uninterrupted mischief throughout the Middle East. 

Lastly, Netanyahu had to convince Trump that Iran would not seek to obstruct shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This might explain why Trump and Netanyahu agreed that regime change should the initial and hopefully only goal of their efforts. The fact that the U.S. armed forces was easily able to effect a regime change in Venezuela undoubtedly made it easier for Netanyahu to convince Trump that this offensive was readily achievable and could be accomplished in a matter of days. This also explains why Trump chose (a) not to confer with the Congress, (b) not to confer in advance with our allies or seek their help in subduing the Iranian, and (c) not to have ground forces stationed nearby and ready to attack.

Although Trump had been warned by the Chairman of his Joint Chiefs of Staff that Iran might seeks to block ships moving cargo through the Strait of Hormuz, he apparently chose not to heed this warning because he was reassured by the thought that overthrowing Iran’s governing regime could be achieved in a few days, leaving no opportunity to block the Strait. He apparently also concluded that it was not in the Iranian regime’s interest to block shipping through the Strait because that could impact Iran’s own shipments of oil. That answer, of course, assumes that Iran would not be able to pick and choose which ships could transit the Strait and that its only choice would be to block all or no ships. 

It thus appears that Trump has made a number of grievous oversights because he had become overly confident. That level of confidence may have been achieved by Netanyahu’s convincing Trump how great the U.S. armed forces are and how brilliant Trump himself is. There is also a possibility that Netanyahu may have had some help from others. One possibility is that Vladimir Putin may have encouraged Trump to join with Israel in attacking Iran. Trump speaks frequently with Putin; and Russia has already been able to receive much higher prices for its oil exports as a result of the war, a bonanza increased by Trump’s later decision to suspend sanctions on the purchase of Russian petroleum. In addition, by having the U.S. fighting a war with Iran, its ability to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia’s attacks would be diminished. It’s also possible that Trump was encouraged by some of his friends in the oil industry who saw the possibility that if Iran was taken over by Trump they might be able to acquire portions of Iran’s oil-producing assets.