The question of how the US should respond to Iran’s increasing provocations has two components: strategic and political.
From a strategic perspective, the US holds almost all the cards. Iran’s economy is collapsing, its people seethe with rebellion and its military might is incapable of causing significant harm to the US homeland. A series of terrorist strikes would – at – simply enrage the American people to the point of delivering even more devastation on Iran.
The only way Iran can prevail would be to provoke a US ground invasion ala Iraq in 2003. This is the one option American planners are determined to avoid.
With this option off the table, the Iranians can only resort to constricting oil traffic through the Persian Gulf. Here again, though, the damage will primarily land on everyone but the United States.
The US is far less dependent on Arab oil than it was only a few years ago. At the same time, China is much more dependent, thus Iran’s closure of oil traffic would inflict the greatest harm on the strategic rival of Iran’s enemy.
Even the Mad Mullahs would have to think twice about inflicting more pain on “the enemy of their enemy” than the do on their enemy.
This brings us to the political question. The Democrats are totally at a loss on this. Having started disastrous wars in Libya and Syria while achieving nothing but a bloody stalemate in Afghanistan, they’re in no position to play the “give peace a chance” card.
The Obama administration’s rapprochement was also a highly publicized failure. Americans have an instinctive hatred of paying tribute and the Dems arguing that the US should bend the knee and beg for Iran’s forgiveness is a non-starter.
Yesterday Trump was poised to launch a retaliatory strike, but very publicly claimed to have an 11-th hour change of heart.
This is not – as the Quisling Never Trump Warmongers would have us believe – proof that the president is irresolute.
Far from it, the highly publicized nature of this decision makes it clear that it was a psy-op, designed to scare the Iranians, as well as other potential adversaries.
The Trump strategy team is highly capable and understands the interrelatedness of diplomatic moves. When the US retreats against Iran, it looks weak everywhere else.
This is in direct contrast with the neoliberal perspective, which divides each nation or region into a discrete and separate theater of operations.
We saw this early on, when Trump ordered a missile strike on Syria while having dessert with the Chinese Premier. The president as simply making an object lesson.
That’s exactly what’s going on here. As the US continues delicate trade negotiations with China, Trump is letting the world know that next time he might push the button all the way down – and blow up their economies in the process.
Thus the Dems are either damning Trump for almost launching a strike while curing the bad luck that he didn’t.
At the same time, they worry that he might undertake a short, successful punitive strike that will boost him in the polls.
This puzzle is particularly problematic for front-runner Slow Joe Biden, who voted for the Iraq War, claimed it was a success, and of course was involved in the Libya and ISIS fiascoes.
This is why Trump held his fire. He can keep all of his enemies twisting in the wind while still putting the screws to Iran.
The Dems and Neocons screaming “Iran called his bluff!” can easily be shut down by asking how many dead Americans they want to see in this new shiny war they advocate.
Once again, Trump calls the tune and everyone dances.
Comments