Trump's Failure was the War, Not the Peace

Who says that you can't teach an old dog a new trick? Cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump may have just turned 80, but the memorandum of understanding to which he has agreed with Iran shows that he is still capable of learning. What Trump has learned is the limits to military force. It is possible to win every battle, but still lose the war. When you lose a war, you don't get to dictate the outcome.

There is almost universal criticism of Trump due to the agreement which decidedly favors Iran. But let's be clear. Trump's error was not signing the MOU. His error was starting the war in the first place. Trump was riding an ego boost from the operation in Venezuela and was being fed the prospect of further glory by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump ignored his own advisors and discounted warnings that turned out to be accurate. He should rightly be condemned for an unnecessary and terribly unwise war. However, the humiliating MOU should correctly be seen as the expected outcome of a failed war.

In Trump's case, his war against Iran was lost within the first 24 hours when his expectation that killing Iran's top leaders would result in their replacements meekly coming to terms with Trump. In Trump's fantasy version of the war, the replacement Iranian leaders would hand him the keys to their oil industry and allow him to control sales going forward, completely disarm themselves, turn over their enriched uranium, and give up support for their allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon. None of this came to pass.

When previous American leaders encountered such setbacks, whether in Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq, their reaction was to double down. Just six more months, or one more surge, they said. An increase in bombing or a few thousand more troops is all it will take, we were told. This happened regardless of whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat. So many years would go by that eventually nobody could explain why we were still fighting. The only answer was that we had to win. Losing was never accepted as an option. In the end, of course, we didn't win. We fought in Vietnam to prevent a communist takeover. The war ended in a communist takeover. We invaded Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. Today the Taliban rules the country. I am not sure why we invaded Iraq, the only one of the three examples in which the U.S. might claim partial success. But I am fairly certain that the goal of the invasion was not to leave in place a Shia-dominated government that is friendly with Iran. Say what you will about Trump, but he does not appear to be willing to repeat these previous mistakes. He will never admit it, but he lost the war and, having lost the war, was prepared to make a deal that reflected that reality.

In the words of Kenny Rogers, "You've got to know when to hold 'em, Know when to fold 'em." Despite his claims, Trump is no genius, stable or otherwise. But he was smart enough to realize that he was holding a losing hand and that it was time to fold. In this respect, Trump has shown a wisdom that other presidents have failed to do.

I've been saying for months that Trump had two choices with regard to Iran. He could accept a humiliating agreement, or he could escalate. The traditional American reaction in such circumstances, of course, has been to escalate. That strategy has rarely, if ever, worked in the past and was unlikely to work now. Not only would the Strait of Hormuz remain closed, potentially destroying the global economy, but Iran could retaliate for additional attacks by further damaging petroleum resources in neighboring countries. Sophisticated and expensive U.S. weapons on which not only the U.S. depends, but Israel as well, are already running short. Another round of fighting similar to the last might leave the U.S. dangerously low on such weapons. Moreover, after everything is said and done, we would likely be right back in the same situation we are now, only worse off. There is little evidence that additional fighting would cause the Iranian regime to collapse. I'm sure it was not easy, but Trump appears to have concluded that a humiliating agreement was his best option.

Of course, Trump probably does not think that he has made a humiliating agreement. The man is a narcissist who clearly believes that reality is what he says it is. Moreover, Trump views himself as a master salesman who can convince anyone of anything. If that fails, he is confident that he can rely on the MAGA cult to side with him regardless of the circumstances. He once said that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and his followers would stand by him. Now he is going to learn whether he can surrender to Iran and still retain their support. Trump's strategy will clearly be to portray what is obviously a loss as a great victory. I, for one, hope that he can get away with it rather than being pressured into reversing course.

One of the most frustrating aspects of viewing the normal American viewpoint towards foreign policy is the black-and-white nature of it. There are good countries and there are bad. The primary determinant of which country fits in which category tends to be whether or not that country supports U.S. interests. Americans may try to dress this up with claims about human rights, democracy, or other concerns, but in the end it almost always comes down to whether, as Franklin D. Roosevelt may or may not have said about Dominican leader Rafael Trujillo, "He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch." Yes, Iran's government is oppressive and its human rights record is atrocious. But has anyone checked out the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia or of any other of our Gulf allies? Trump may have a complete disregard for human rights and democracy, but at least he disregards such things consistently. Trump breaks the mold of American presidents by refusing to view other countries in black-and-white terms, but rather all as various shades of gray. As a result, he does not view Iran as a uniquely evil country, but rather as a country not particularly different than others.

When Trump was asked about Iran's missile stockpile, something that he had once vowed to eliminate, his response was "I'm saying that if other countries have them, it's a little unfair for them not to have some." More pragmatically, the failure of the U.S. to decisively win this war means that there is no option to prevent Iran from retaining its missiles. It would be stupid to suggest otherwise. Similarly, Trump's views concerning Iran's enrichment of uranium for peaceful domestic purposes have evolved. Prior to the war, the U.S. was close to reaching an agreement with Iran — one that had far better terms than the MOU Trump just signed — but Trump killed it because he wanted a total end to enrichment. Now Trump says, "It's a little hard when other people have it, other adjoining states have it, and you're not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that. You have to use a little common sense." Trump should not be criticized for coming to terms with reality. He should be criticized for launching a war in order to learn what was a matter of common sense.

Americans across the political spectrum, from the left to the right, are having a difficult time coming to terms with losing. Losing is simply not part of the American psyche. But what needs to be understood is that the loss is not the MOU that Trump signed, but the failure of the political establishment — led by Trump — to avoid this war in the first place. The mistakes that led to the war are obvious and numerous. A dirty secret is that many — including several top Democrats — actually supported the war. Too many wrongly believed the myth of American military power and expected that Iran would be defeated. It is ironic that enablers and supporters of this mistaken venture are now among the most vocal critics of the natural result. In this regard, Trump is showing more wisdom than them. That alone should be cause for serious self-reflection.