Trump's Choices for Ending the War

This past weekend, millions of Americans participated in "No Kings" protests that were held nationwide. While these demonstrations were mostly held in response to our own mad king, cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump, many protestors must have realized the irony that, at the very time they were out in the streets, the U.S. military was in the process of defending kings, emirs, and the wannabe king of Israel. If those leaders get their way, U.S. ground troops may soon be committed to their further protection. It is the nature of the Trump administration that did not bother to make a case for war to the American public, cannot explain why the war was started, and changes the stated objectives daily, that we don't know what will happen next. There seem to be two alternatives at this point: 1) Trump will declare victory, withdraw U.S. forces, and leave Iran stronger and more radical than before the war; or 2) escalate the fighting with the introduction of ground troops. There is a third alternative that is almost too horrifying to contemplate. That would be the destruction of much of Iran's civilian infrastructure, including power plants, which would lead to retaliatory attacks on power and desalination facilities in neighboring countries. This would lead to a widespread humanitarian disaster and probably collapse the global economy. Tramp wavers daily between all these scenarios. But in an appearance yesterday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio outlined a new set of objectives for the war that would seem to indicate a rapid declaration of success and possible end to the war.

Trump is completely incoherent about the war. He appears to be mostly acting in response to the financial markets. When the markets are bad, he suggests that victory is at hand and an end to the fighting is near. When the market improves, Trump suggests that fighting will escalate. Whether Trump is manipulating the market for financial gains or simply because he considers financial markets to be his barometer of success is up for debate, but what is clear is that the stock market, at least, has been responding like Pavlov's dog to Trump's statements. Trump made a conciliatory statement yesterday before U.S. markets opened and, predictably, stock indexes rose (though the S&P 500 ultimately closed down). Again this morning, Trump signalled that the war would not escalate and the markets dutifully opened with the Dow Jones Industrial Average already gaining nearly 1,000 points.

The key issue now appears to be the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Trump initially did not expect the strait to be closed and, therefore, did not plan for reopening it. When Iran closed it immediately upon the start of the fighting, Trump was caught flat-footed. On March 9th, 22 days ago, Trump warned Iran that "Death, Fire, and Fury will reign upon them" if "Iran does anything that stops the flow of Oil within the Strait of Hormuz". The strait was already closed at that time and has been closed ever since except for traffic Iran explicitly authorizes (which is mostly tankers carrying Iranian oil). The next day, Trump issued a warning about mines in the strait, writing that if any mines were not immediately removed, "the Military consequences to Iran will be at a level never seen before". As far as I can tell, the U.S. military has no idea whether there are mines in the strait or not.

On March 14, Trump claimed that "Many Countries, especially those who are affected by Iran’s attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships" to help reopen the strait. This was a lie, and the next day Trump pleaded with other countries to "take care of that passage". On March 17, Trump wrote that "The United States has been informed by most of our NATO ‘Allies’ that they don’t want to get involved with our Military Operation against the Terrorist Regime of Iran". Trump has a history of getting himself into trouble and then having others bail him out. He has found out that European leaders, most of whom he has done nothing but insult, are not eager to come to his assistance at this time.

The following day, Trump mused about simply allowing the strait to remain closed and leaving the issue to others to resolve. He wrote, "I wonder what would happen if we ‘finished off’ what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called ‘Strait?’" On March 20, Trump posted a list of 5 objectives for the war but explicitly excluded the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, saying that the United States does not use it. But the very next day, Trump turned 180 degrees and issued a warning to Iran that:

If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!

Two days after his warning, Trump again turned conciliatory, writing that:

I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Trump suspended his threat to bomb Iranian power plants. In reality, there is no evidence that any talks were occurring between Iran and the U.S., let alone productive talks. Trump seemed to recognize that and "truthed" on March 26 that "The Iranian negotiators are very different and ‘strange’" and were not being serious. The same day, Trump complained that "NATO NATIONS HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO HELP WITH THE LUNATIC NATION, NOW MILITARILY DECIMATED, OF IRAN."

Yesterday, Trump again claimed that negotiations were underway and going well. He wrote, "The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran." But Trump also warned that "if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately ‘Open for Business,’ we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants". Again, Iran did not appear to be intimidated. This morning, Trump again returned to a desire to leave the strait to others to resolve, writing that countries that use the strait should "build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT."

Here is my interpretation of Trump's swinging back and forth between threats to leave reopening the strait to others and promises to decimate Iran if it doesn't allow free traffic through the strait. Trump surely has been advised that reopening the strait militarily will be a costly and lengthy operation. One that will cost many American lives and bog down U.S. troops for an indefinite amount of time. As a result, Trump is reluctant to pursue such an objective. On the other hand, leaving Iran in control of the strait must be unacceptable to the Gulf Arab states to whom Trump is indebted, both personally and as president. The Gulf states don't have the capacity to challenge Iran without U.S. support and, therefore, would essentially be held hostage to Iran's demands of them. They have invested far too much into Trump to allow him to simply waltz out and leave them in that untenable situation. As a result, Trump is in a trap of his own making.

Meanwhile, European countries are sending signals that they might prefer to make deals with Iran rather than collaborate with Trump. Last week, Spain denied use of its airspace to U.S. military aircraft. Yesterday, Italy refused to allow U.S. military aircraft to land at an airbase in Sicily. Today, Trump complained that "The Country of France wouldn’t let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory." These countries may well believe that if they distance themselves from the U.S. war effort, they might be able to get some oil through the strait. Most of the European countries show no interest in helping Trump with the fighting and, if they can't make a deal with Iran otherwise, will probably just end up paying the required tolls.

In the midst of all this, Rubio went on television yesterday to state what he called "clear objectives," saying that we should "write them down." The goals he listed were:

1. The destruction of Iran's air force;
2. The destruction of Iran's navy;
3. The severe diminishing of Iran's missile launching capability; and
4. The destruction of their factories so that they can't make more missiles and more drones.

All of this, Rubio claimed, was "so that they can never hide behind it to acquire a nuclear weapon." While Rubio claimed that these had been the objectives of the war from the beginning, that is clearly not true. Iran's air force has not been a threat to anyone. Its aircraft are antiquated. The air force is so ineffective that Iran did not deploy a single aircraft in either the 12-day June war or the current conflict. This objective has clearly just been made up. Iran's navy was a little more effective, but most of it, at least where the larger ships are concerned, was easily destroyed at the beginning of the war and this objective also appears to have been added post hoc. The third objective, diminishing Iran's missile launching capability, is purely subjective. That can be declared accomplished at any time. The destruction of Iran's factories appears to be a new goal and, again, one that will be difficult to evaluate objectively. The bottom line is that this list can be declared completed at any time, including right now.

What's missing from this list is anything to do with Iran's nuclear material and enrichment program. These were items on the list of 15 issues that Trump claimed were being negotiated with Iran. Now they don't even appear on Rubio's list. Similarly, opening the Strait of Hormuz is not mentioned, despite prior threats from Trump to decimate Iran if the strait were not reopened. If Trump were to declare Rubio's objectives to be accomplished and call an end to the war, we would be returning to something very similar to the pre-war status quo. It would be very difficult for anyone to consider that a U.S. victory.

This brings me to the final issue. In Trump's mind, he can declare victory, bring the troops home, hold celebratory parades and hand out medals (of course giving himself the biggest one), and declare this the most important triumph of the U.S. armed services in history. However, he is likely to be prevented from doing this by war opponents in the U.S. and foreign critics. Antiwar Democrats will be quick to use the war and its lack of success as a campaign issue and, internationally, Trump will face severe disparagement, not least from the Gulf countries that have been so generous towards him with their money. Trump will probably face humiliation if he ends the war now. Can you imagine Trump and "warrior ethos" Pete Hegseth limping home with their tails between their legs? Both have far too fragile egos to allow for such a thing.

I greatly fear that things are as simple as this. Rather than face humiliation, Trump and Hegseth will prefer to escalate the war. If so, it probably just delays their day of humiliation, but at a greatly increased cost of lives and money. U.S. troops are still being deployed to the region. There is no reason to believe that they won't be used. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that Trump and Hegseth will be any better prepared for a ground war than they were for the initial war that Trump apparently thought would be as easy as the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.

Trump is flailing, and Hegseth is overcompensating for being emasculated. The U.S. is facing almost certain defeat in the current war, either in the short term or long term, depending on Trump's choices. Sad to say, but the best strategy for war opponents is to congratulate Trump on his historic victory and give him an award for being the world's greatest wartime leader. As distasteful as that is, it is far better than the alternative.