The ongoing debate about whether the Iran war will become a quagmire misses the point. President Donald Trump and America are already in one.
Yes, Trump can stop bombing Iran, but Tehran might continue to block oil from passing through the Strait of Hormuz even as its own tankers pass unobstructed. Oil prices would soar, while fertilizer, generic drugs, helium and other products dependent on the strait would grow scarce, squeezing the American and global economies alike.
“The only way to end this war,” insists President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran, is for America to make three huge concessions: recognise “Iran’s legitimate rights,” presumably to enrich uranium; pay war reparations; and provide international guarantees “against future aggression”.
I suspect the terms are negotiable. But Iranian officials are adamant that the war will continue until they are confident they will not face attacks. “The end of the war is in our hands,” said a senior military figure, stating this would come only if US forces left the Persian Gulf.
This is not encouraging, and I fear Trump will try to extricate himself by escalating. He has ordered the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit to the area. One plausible use of those 2,500 Marines would be to seize Kharg Island, the base of much of Iran’s oil industry. Back in 1988, Trump told The Guardian that the US was too weak and that if he had been in charge, “I’d do a number on Kharg Island. I’d go in and take it.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a hawkish adviser, recently urged Trump to move on Kharg. “If Iran loses control or the ability to operate its oil infrastructure from Kharg Island, its economy is annihilated,” Graham posted. “He who controls Kharg Island controls the destiny of this war.”
Another option is for Marines to seize Iranian-occupied islands in the Strait of Hormuz. But if Iran did not cave, would Marines continue to occupy territory as they took losses from missiles and drones? Meanwhile, Iran could escalate by calling on Yemen’s Houthis to block the Red Sea, further gumming up trade. We haven’t yet seen major cyber or terrorist attacks by Iran, but I suspect we will.
Trump also seems to be considering inserting ground troops at Isfahan to recover highly enriched uranium. This is extraordinarily risky; it is not even clear the uranium is accessible.
Could the war still turn out well? Perhaps. Iran could run out of drones, or there could be a coup by moderate officers seeking a deal. But for now, Trump has put America in a terrible situation, likely increasing the nuclear threat. The previous supreme leader enriched uranium but never built a weapon; the new leadership may rush toward a nuclear deterrent to provide actual protection.
Doubling down may just carry us deeper into this quagmire. This feels like 1965, as Lyndon Johnson made the fateful decision that the only way to recover American honour in Vietnam was to plunge further into distant lands.
The US and Israel have enjoyed tactical successes untethered to coherent strategy. They killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and got his harder-line son as successor. Israel killed Ali Larijani, and now we may lack a strong counterpart for negotiations. Each success mires us further.
In the 1960s, the US negotiated a status of forces agreement that Ruhollah Khomeini used to propel the Islamic Revolution. In the 1990s, US bases in Saudi Arabia outraged Osama bin Laden. The lesson is to always employ tactics that advance strategic goals—doubling down does not do that.
“I cannot support sending the next generation off to fight and die in a war that serves no benefit to the American people,” Joseph Kent, director of Trump’s National Counterterrorism Center, said this week as he resigned in protest.
What should Trump do? His least-bad option is to do what he did with China and Yemen: boldly declare victory and then frantically negotiate.
Trump should declare his war goals achieved, making him the greatest leader since Churchill. He should lean on Benjamin Netanyahu to end hostilities against Hezbollah and Iran. The White House should then plead with Oman to bring Iran to secret talks.
Iran needs revenue and investment; a reduction in sanctions would be appealing. A prolonged pause in enrichment with renewed inspections might be possible. This would also reduce the likelihood of retaliatory terror attacks.
The New York Times