The Whims of War – Part 6
In my last article I characterized President Trump’s response to a question about whether regime change was his motive for initiating the war in Iran as a “non-denial denial.” Specifically, his answer was that “he had never said that he started the war to effect a change in Iran’s ruling regime” even though “regime change” was obviously his initial, if not his primary, objective. This past Tuesday evening, faced with rising inflation and a declining stock market, he went one step further by touting an “agreement” he had entered into with Iran to suspend all fighting for two weeks. The problem was that this purported “agreement” did not bind Israel, a principal participant in the war, and, therefore, never had a realistic chance of achieving its stated goal. As more fully explained below, the obligations of the parties imposed by the agreement were revealed to be ineffectual in less than 24 hours. Thus, it can rightly be characterized as a “non-agreement agreement.”
At the center of the negotiations leading to this “agreement” were a list of 15 conditions for peace prepared by the Trump administration and a 10-point counter-proposal prepared by the Iranians. Almost immediately after receiving the Iranian proposal Trump had summarily rejected it, stating that it was “fundamentally unserious.” To speed discussions aimed at achieving a cease-fire, he threatened that unless Iran agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz by this past Tuesday at 8:00pm the U.S. would commence a cataclysmic bombing attack that would wipe out Iran’s entire civilization. The Iranians, however, were unmoved by this ultimatum.
Then, less than two hours before the scheduled expiration of the deadline established by President Trump he joyfully announced there had been a sudden break-through in the discussions aimed at establishing to a cease-fire agreement. Unsurprisingly, that announcement caused the world price of crude oil to drop by 10% and the Dow Jones Industrial average to rise by over 1,200 points. In announcing this understanding President Trump asserted that he considered Iran’s 10-point proposal to be a “workable basis for peace” albeit “not good enough.” He further characterized it to be “a very significant step.” To say the least, Trump’s explanation for the sudden change in the negotiations seemed very strange in view of his rejection of the Iranians’ peace demands only a few days before.
President Trump’s remarkable and rapid reassessment of Iran’s demands was explained the next day by Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, in her daily press conference. Specifically she reported that following President Trump’s rejection of Iran’s “original” 10-point set of demands for peace, the Iranians had submitted a revised 10-point set of demands and it was this revised version that President Trump had been referring to in his announcement. Immediately thereafter, however, the Iranians denied that they had modified their demands for achieving peace and published what they contend was their first and only 10-point proposal for doing so. According to Erika Solomon writing in The New York Times, the Iranians’ proposal included the following requirements for ending the war:
1. “An American guarantee of nonaggression with Iran.
2. Iran maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz.
3. Ending the regional war on all fronts, including against Iran’s ally, Hezbollah, in Lebanon.
4. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from all bases and positions in the region.
5. Reparations to Iran for war damages.
6. Acceptance of Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment.
7. Lifting all primary sanctions on Iran.
8. Lifting all secondary sanctions on Iran.
9. Termination of all resolutions against Iran by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
10. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran.”
It is altogether inconceivable that President Trump would have considered these demands as a “workable basis for peace.” This presents what might rightly be characterized as a “He said--She said” situation. Had the Iranians back-tracked on their demands and submitted a revised set of proposals; or had President Trump, in his eagerness to get out of the uncomfortable situation that he had created, simply lied about Iran’s revised demands? In resolving this issue, it’s useful to remember that during the two preceding weeks Trump had sought to explain his two earlier decisions to extend the deadlines he had laid down for the Iranian by asserting that “The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran.” The Iranians had denied that any such negotiations had taken place; and all indications are that this was simply a face-saving excuse for Trump’s willingness to extend the deadlines he had set.
It’s also productive to consider why President Trump would have left it to his Press Secretary to explain why he had undergone such a dramatic change in his assessment of the Iranians’ peace proposal. Also puzzling was why there has been no disclosure of Iran’s “revised” 10-point set of proposals upon which President Trump had allegedly relied in calling off the new and devastating attacks that he had been threatening. Was his description of the Iranians’ revised conditions for entering into a cease-fire agreement just another figment of his imagination? If so, this might lead some to conclude that our president doesn’t consume alcoholic beverages for the simple reason he doesn’t need them to escape from reality.
President Trump obviously thinks that making ruinous, outrageous and even illegal threats against an opponent is just an effective bargaining tactic. Without a doubt, it can be especially effective when the person with whom you are bargaining believes that you are just crazy enough to carry out your threats. President Trump has even admitted to using this tactic during his first term as President when he threatened Russia and China with nuclear war. He explained at the time that if your opponent believes that there is as much as a 10% chance you will make good on your threats, they will acquiesce in your demands.
The problem is that President Trump has already demonstrated on at least three occasions during this short war he will back down if his opponent stands firm in the face of his threats. Those actions earned him the nickname “TACO” standing for “Trump always chickens out.” In addition, his continuing escalation of his threats undoubtedly did more to reveal that he was bluffing than to increase their intimidating effect on the Iranians. This experience should have taught him that empty threats should not be employed against an opponent that is willing to endure the consequences that you are threatening.
Another short-coming which President Trump did not seem to take into consideration when seeking to intimidate the Iranian regime was that his threats could impact the behavior of others in a manner detrimental to our nation. Specifically, his threats that he was willing to ignore the laws of his own country as well as well-established international treaties and norms would likely cause the U.S.’s long-standing allies to doubt whether they can trust it to help them when they are in need. Similarly, his threats to destroy the entire Iranian civilization would cause the 90+ million Iranians not associated with Iran’s ruling regime to view Americans as their enemies and not as their potential liberators.
Trump may have also created more problems just by making outrageous and illegal threats. That’s because such threats might also prompt other nations to lose their inhibitions about taking the very actions which he had threatened. For example, immediately following his threats to destroy Iran’s civilian infrastructure, Iran employed that same tactic against some of the other Persian Gulf countries that support the U.S.
Anne Applebaum, a well-known historian and columnist, has observed that President Trump seems to suffer from an inability to foresee where his actions are likely to lead. He obviously did not anticipate that his own actions would lead to two impeachment proceedings and the four separate criminal indictments handed down against him following his first term in office. Nor did he believe the warning he received from General Caine that Iran would cut off traffic through the Strait of Hormuz in response to his initiation of a war against it. This character flaw may be the product of the fact that even as a child his misdeeds were largely forgiven; and as a young man he was able to avoid accountability by his father’s willingness to bail him out of the problems he had caused. Our U.S. Supreme Court has added to his belief that he can always avoid accountability by declaring that he (as well as future presidents) cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions taken as a part of their presidential duties.
The ramifications of President Trump’s recent actions, however, have far wider implications than their effect on our nation’s friends and foes. His recent actions may now be coming back to haunt him personally. As I reported about two weeks ago, former CIA Director John Brennan suggested that the 25th Amendment should be employed to remove President Trump from office. The escalating nature of his threats, as well as his use of profanity to convey them, underscores a growing belief that Trump is mentally unstable. Although Director Brennan’s suggestion to invoke the 25th Amendment seemed far-fetched at the time, Trump’s recent actions have caused Director Brennan’s suggestion to be seriously considered by many members of our Congress.
Thankfully, President Trump’s threats to return Iran back to the “Stone Age” were the quickly followed by his announcement of the understanding to pause hostilities. The very fact that President Trump chose to pause his threatened attacks on Iran reinforces his previous indications that he wants to escape this war in the worst way which appears what he’s likely to get. Notwithstanding the momentary sense of relief displayed by the oil and stock markets, an actual peace agreement seems to lie in the far distant future as serious differences remain between of the warring parties.
Not unexpectedly, hostilities resumed the next morning when Israel attacked Lebanon where Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy organization, is ensconced. Although Israel (which did not take part in the discussions chaired by Pakistan) claimed that Lebanon was not encompassed by the cease-fire, that contention was quickly rejected by the representative of both Iran and Pakistan. To prove that Israel’s attack on Lebanon were a violation of the parties’ understanding, Iran published its 10 proposed requisites for peace set forth above, the third of which expressly prohibits attacks on Hezbollah. Although the U.S. was a party to the cease fire discussions, President Trump did not address the issue. Instead, he simply admonished Israel to “go slow.”
There can be little doubt that Israel wants to take full advantage of Iran’s current weakened condition to extend the damage to Iran’s military capabilities that had already been inflicted. Mara Liasson, at President Trump’s press conference held on Wednesday, questioned whether Israel’s attack on Lebanon might have been intended to undermine the President’s efforts to cut short the conflict with Iran. Although the President rejected that notion, there is no question it might have been at least a secondary motive for Israel’s action. That’s because Iran is still in possession of an estimated 900 pounds of 60% enriched uranium and that will remain the case if hostilities end now.
In view of North Korea’s experience in dealing with the U.S., the Iranians obviously understand that unless and until they develop their own nuclear weapons they will continue to be vulnerable to attacks by the U.S. and Israel. In addition, the only way that Israel is going to eliminate Iran’s nuclear ambitions is through a full-scale ground war, something Israel is not capable of waging on its own. Thus, Israel has a strong motive to have the U.S. continue its war against Iran.
At this point, Israel is continuing its attacks in Lebanon against Hezbollah, and Iran is severely limiting the number of ships that can pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Recent reports are that less than a dozen ships are currently passing through the Strait each day as compared to approximately 135 per day prior to the war. This leaves President Trump in a quandary. His admonition to Israel “to go slow” is an indication that he is either unwilling or unable to stop Israel from attacking Hezbollah. More importantly, as long as Israel continues those attacks, Iran is going to restrict traffic through the Strait which will have an increasing detrimental impact on the economies of all developed countries, including that of the U.S. Trump is already facing mounting criticism at home over having started this war; and a continuation of the war will further diminish his control over his MAGA voting base.
Faced with these realities, President Trump has again turned to finding a way to reopen shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. To that end, he has turned once more to our NATO allies, trying to convince them to assist the U.S. in seizing control of the Strait. This effort was made in a meeting which Trump had with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO. In true Trump fashion, he threatened that the NATO countries have only a few days in which to commit to joining in an effort to reopen the Strait. Should they fail to do so, he will cause the U.S. to withdraw from NATO. In conveying this threat he apparently harped on the refusal of some NATO members to allow U.S. forces to utilize military facilities located within their borders. It probably never occurred to him that he might have achieved more favorable responses by promising to terminate his love affair with Vladimir Putin and agreeing to assist them in helping Ukraine to repel Russia’s invasion.
How long it will take to get the parties to agree to a workable cease-fire is not clear, but it could take a long time as even before this war was begun there was little trust shared between the U.S. and Iran and a lot less between Israel and Iran. That problem is made worse by the fact that there is no third-party with sufficient clout to convince them to reach an agreement or with resources to compel them to do so. Nevertheless, in an effort to move peace discussions forward, President Trump has dispatched Vice President Vance to represent the U.S. in the on-going negotiations being overseen by Pakistan. Not only is Vice President Vance unlikely to succeed in hammering out a resolution of this conflict, but he’s also likely to further tarnish his own reputation in trying to do so.