The Whims of War—Part 2

            In my last article, I wrote about how President Trump commenced a war in Iran not only without seeking the approval of the Congress, but more importantly without properly analyzing the ramifications of what he was doing. It was the failure of serious military planning that led me to conclude that our attacks on Iran were the product of whimsical thinking. Supporting my conclusion were several factors.

First and foremost, the Trump administration was (and continues to be) unable to clearly articulate the objective of its actions. Second, there was no effort made to enlist other nations to join in this effort as Presidents George H.W. Bush had done in preparing for the successful Gulf War and George W. Bush had done in preparation of the ill-fated Iraq War. Third, even though it was unlikely that any important objective could be achieved solely by aerial attacks, there was no effort made to employ ground forces. Fourth, although any war involving Iran would surely impair the production and delivery of crude oil, no effort was made to replenish our nation’s petroleum reserves which was at a 60% level. Nor was there a plan to secure the safe passage of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of the world’s petroleum needs pass as well as one-third of the world’s needs for fertilizer. Fifth, although Iran had developed ballistic missiles and low-cost aerial drones that could attack invading forces, the Trump administration had declined to accept Ukraine’s offer to provide the U.S. with low-cost interceptor drones which could offset Iran’s most potent weapons. In fact, President Trump is reported to have said “We don’t need their help…. We know more about drones than anybody.”

Admittedly, the Trump administration has mentioned numerous reasons underlying its initiation of a war against Iran. As recounted in my last articles, those reasons have little relationship to reality. More recently President Trump has offered yet another possible motive for the attack on Iran. He pointed out since the Iranian revolution in 1979 Iran has continuously referred to the U.S. as “The Great Satan” and threatened “Death to America.” He therefore suggested that “It was time to end that threat.” 

To be sure, President Trump had sought to achieve that goal by encouraging Iranians to rise up against their repressive government – a call which clearly went unanswered. His own effort to replace the leadership of Iran by bombing its leaders similarly proved to be ineffective. The remaining alternative for eliminating Iran’s hostility toward the U.S. would appear to be to invade Iran in the same manner taken by the administration of George W. Bush to effect regime change in Iraq – an indeed frightening possibility since Iran’s armed forces are many time greater than those that were supporting the regime of Sadam Hussein.

Clearly President Trump and his advisors are infatuated by the power and professionalism of the U.S. military. Our armed forces performed splendidly when they bombed the Iranian nuclear facilities last summer as well as when they kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro two months ago. What they may not have appreciated is that warfare has evolved over the past few years. Countries are moving away from costly weapon systems and replacing them with inexpensive drones that can both deliver explosive devices and intercept planes and missiles. Indeed, these less expensive weapons of war are being employed heavily by both sides in the war in Ukraine. Moreover, cyber technology is capable of jamming the guidance systems of many our expensive weapon systems. These changes greatly diminish the current advantage in weaponry possessed by the U.S. military. The fact that our President still does not realize this change can be seen in his proposal to build a new class of battleships which are large, expensive and slow-moving targets which can be neutralized by a small flock of inexpensive drones.

Nevertheless, President Trump apparently concluded that initiating a war against Iran presented few downside risks. In reaching that conclusion, he rejected the advice of General Caine, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, who had warned that Iran might retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz which it could achieve by planting a variety of mines. Trump’s ill-conceived actions are certainly consistent with his often stated belief that he knows more than his generals. It’s also important to note that it was this same concern that had prompted the Obama administration to seek to negotiate with Iran rather than use force to compel it to set aside its plans to develop nuclear weapons. 

We don’t know what actually prompted President Trump to proceed in the face of this obvious risks. One report is that he concluded that Iran would not seek to blockade the Strait of Hormuz because it had more to lose by doing so. This is probably correct if what he had in mind was a simple “one and done” attack like the one the U.S. and Israel had executed last summer when they attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities. The problem is that the operations he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were contemplating were qualitatively different and included an attack on the lives of Iran’s Supreme Leader and many of his deputies as well as attacks on its military arsenals and defense capabilities. In addition, their joint plan also included a broad series of attacks (to be conducted by Israel) on Iran’s allies throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis. 

Another factor that might have prompted President Trump to proceed with a large-scale attack on Iran was that he was looking for a significant event that would create a prolonged distraction from the growing demands that the remainder of the Epstein files be made public. Also entering his thinking may have been the likelihood that pursuing a “war” would provide substance to his continuing efforts to portray himself as a strong leader willing to stand up against a nation that was undermining world peace. At the very least it would show that he was willing to act in a manner which the two Democratic Presidents who preceded him were too timid to pursue. 

Unfortunately, one of President Trump’s most common traits is that he’s impulsive and frequently embarks upon actions which place him (and, in this case, our nation) in peril. One need only recall his inciting the attack on the Capitol in January 2021 and his absconding with classified documents when he left office.  While he was successful in escaping accountability for both of these misguided actions, it’s not at all clear that he will escape accountability for having started a war that will lead to untold destruction and deaths. Indeed, still another possibility is that the war he has started could trigger a world-wide recession (which I would urge be named after him). So far, both the Senate and House Republicans are holding their tongues, but they will be coming under greater pressure to turn against Trump’s agenda as we approach the fall elections. 

Even if a major catastrophe is avoided, there is still the question as to when and how this war will be brought to an end. President Trump has said that it will be concluded when his “bones” tell him that the time has come. This statement is hardly reassuring and seemingly is a confession that he either doesn’t know or simply doesn’t wish to articulate what specific actions are required to bring the hostilities to a halt for fear that it might somehow enable the Iranians to foil his exit strategy. On another occasion, he responded to that same question by saying that he and Benjamin Netanyahu would jointly decide when to bring hostilities to an end. On still another occasion he said that it would essentially be his decision. 

The problem is that the decision when the war will end may not be his to make. The notion that he alone will decide when and how the war will end is obviously based on the dubious assumption that the Iranian government would welcome an armistice whenever it became available. That is largely wishful thinking when you consider that Hamas, after two years of constant bombing by Israel, only agreed to a cease fire but refused to surrender its weapons. Indeed, the number of cease-fire violations recorded in the war in Gaza have been estimated to be as high as 1,600 (most of which have been attributed to Israel). Considering the level of destruction that has already inflicted upon Iran, it is indeed difficult to conclude that the Iranian government would not continue to look for ways to retaliate against both the U.S. and Israel. Why would Trump even think otherwise; if he were Iran’s Supreme Leader it’s hard to imagine that retribution would not be uppermost in his mind.

At the very onset of the war Iran’s immediate response was to unleash aerial attacks on U.S. facilities located throughout the Middle East. This includes military bases, embassies and consulates. Iran also begun attacking ships seeking to exit the Persian Gulf and possibly planting mines in the Strait of Hormuz. Because U.S. forces are attacking Iran’s ability to produce more ballistic missiles and drones, it is reasonable to conclude that Iran’s supply of those weapons will soon be exhausted. Similarly, the U.S. has been attacking Iran’s naval vessels that can lay mines in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes. The problem is that mines can also be laid using relatively small vessels which can elude aerial attacks. The result is that U.S. forces are currently refusing to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz and it may be at least a few more weeks before the shipping lanes can be reopened.

Another problem is that the oil facilities located on the shores of the Persian Gulf have limited storage capacity; and unless shipping traffic is quickly resumed those facilities will have to be shut down and that could cause the price of crude oil (which has already risen to $100 per barrel) to spike even higher. While that is good news for Russia and Vladimir Putin, it is distinctly bad news for our allies in Europe who depend upon oil and natural gas being produced by the Persian Gulf countries. It is also bad news for those same Persian Gulf countries whose economies are almost wholly dependent of their sales of petroleum, natural gas and fertilizer which are being held captive as a result of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Although China is also among the countries that depend on oil produced in the Middle East, it currently has over a million barrels of oil stored in it strategic petroleum reserve which will enable it to survive for at least a few months without receiving further oil shipments.

As noted above, President Trump did not bother to invite our nation’s traditional allies to join in his effort to rid our planet of a regime that has created havoc throughout the Middle East for the past 47 years. This undoubtedly was not a mere oversight. The truth is that Trump doesn’t like allies because allies bring with them independent voices; and Trump does not tolerate anyone who disagrees with what he wants to do. That’s why he loads his administration with sycophants and summarily fires those who objects to his orders. Now that he is faced with the prospect of having to employ ground forces to achieve what may be his military objective (and I don’t purport to know) he’s talking about enlisting the aid of other nations. His call for assistance, however, has led to dearth of volunteers even though he has bragged that “Many countries will send warships to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.”

‍ ‍Recent reports are that the the USS Tripoli, an amphibious assault ship transporting 2,500 marines, is being brought into the war zone. It’s not clear whether President Trump actually intends to deploy these troops in Iran or whether this is just another threat aimed at coercing a concession from Iran. One indication of the intended mission of these forces is that following the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is reported to have been busy removing the processed uranium from the site attacked by the U.S. last summer and dispersing it throughout the country. The Tripoli’s ground forces thus may be intended to perform a search and retrieve function for that enriched uranium. The problem is that it is not at all clear that such a mission is still feasible. In any event, this would result in a sizable number of U.S. casualties even assuming it was successful. 

I wish I could tell you when and how this war will end. However, without knowing the objectives which President Trump is seeking to achieve,  it’s impossible to make any such prediction. All I can say is that if this war were being conducted by rational individuals it would end soon before more serious damage occurs. Unfortunately, its principal players do not provide a basis for optimism. 

Trump is drunk with power and appears to get an emotional high from acts of cruelty and destruction. Moreover, creating an appearance of strength and success is what tends to drive his decisions. Indeed, it’s reported that he has already rejected entreaties from friendly nations to seek a negotiations to end the war. Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’ new Supreme Leader, is largely unknown but there are reports that he is even more radical than his father (which is a scary thought). He is also probably driven by an urge to  revenge for his father’s murder. Added to that, he’s surrounded by a group of macho advisors urging him to smite “the Great Satan.” As  result, he’s likely to be bent on engaging in protracted asymmetrical warfare. The remaining important player is Benjamin Netanyahu who is very smart and has Trump’s confidence. Thus, he, unlike Trump’s own inner circle, might be the only person with sufficient gravitas who could steer Trump toward seeking a quick cease-fire. Unfortunately, Netanyahu’s goal seems to be to maximize the destruction of Iran’s ability to create havoc throughout the Middle East and is in no rush to end that endeavor.

We will just have to wait to see when, whether and how President Trump avoids accountability for yet another crisis of his own making.