Pundits think Trump won’t fight. But as sanctions bite, Tehran could cross a line.
Opinion: Military Conflict With Iran is Still a Possibility
Global View: A miscalculation by Iran could have far reaching consequences as the United States seeks to de-escalate conflict in the region. Image: AFP Photo / Iranian Presidency
There was a short-lived war scare following Iran’s Sept. 14 attack on Abqaiq, an important Saudi oil-production facility, and a nearby oil field. The scare faded as pundits concluded that underneath the chest-thumping, Donald Trump was more chicken than hawk—that for all his “cocked and loaded” bluster, he is ultimately willing to let Iran get away with mayhem in the Gulf and possibly even willing to cut a new deal with Tehran on its terms.
That’s a misreading of President Trump and his political base. Jacksonian America is certainly tired of “endless wars.” The president understands and shares that concern. America’s steady move toward energy independence also reduces public concern about the Middle East. But Jacksonian America is neither patient nor pacifist, and there are provocations that would transform Jacksonian opinion overnight. The widespread if erroneous belief that the USS Maine had been sunk by a Spanish mine in 1898 forced a reluctant President William McKinley into the Spanish-American War.
Iran’s recent provocations have not yet crossed the classic Jacksonian red lines. Iran has not attacked American troops, launched terror strikes against the American homeland, fired on American-flagged vessels, interfered with the oil trade enough to cause a price shock in the U.S., made such progress on its nuclear program that an Iranian bomb is imminent, or invaded the territory of a country the U.S. has promised to defend.
Yet Tehran has been inching closer to these lines, and it may yet cross them. As the administration sees it, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told me in a recent interview, the regime is trapped. The last major round of American sanctions, which took effect in May, essentially cut off Iran from world oil markets. Now Tehran faces excruciating trade-offs: how much money does it spend on Bashar Assad in Syria, on Hezbollah in Lebanon, and on the Houthis in Yemen while millions of middle-class Iranians go broke?
The North Koreans have said that they will make their people eat grass for 50 years to preserve their nuclear program, but senior U.S. officials believe the Iranian regime can’t match that resolve. Tehran is frantically seeking an escape as the pain of sanctions intensifies. The Financial Times estimates its economy will contract 9.3% in 2019.
Iran’s actions since May—demanding money from the Europeans, restarting its nuclear program, attacking Gulf shipping, and inflicting massive damage on a major oil facility—all have aimed at forcing the U.S. to provide, or at least to allow others to provide, some relief to the flagging Iranian economy. That the American response to these provocations has mostly involved angry tweets has convinced some in Tehran—and Washington—that Mr. Trump will never fight.
This misses the broader American strategy. The U.S. isn’t bombing Iran, but neither is it yielding on sanctions. As administration insiders see things, the driving force shaping the confrontation is Iranian impotence rather than American vacillation.
Mr. Trump’s restraint so far is a sign of America’s wider geopolitical strength. Thanks to American fracking, Iran’s troublemaking in the Gulf hasn’t affected American motorists at the pump. As one insider put it to me, “The Permian Basin saved Tehran.”
If Tehran continues to escalate its provocations in the Middle East and beyond, it will deepen its international isolation. On Monday, France, Germany and the U.K. blamed Iran for the Saudi attack. Continuing escalation will sooner or later cross a red line that would lead Mr. Trump’s political base to support a strong military response. Alternatively, Iran can return to the negotiating table on terms favorable to the U.S. and agree to both tighten the nuclear accords and limit its regional ambitions.
It is absolutely true that the Trump administration doesn’t want war with Iran, and not only because wars are politically risky. But that consensus is unstable, and Iran could easily blunder into a kinetic confrontation as it continues to writhe under the sanctions—especially if it internalizes the mistaken belief that Mr. Trump’s patience has no limits.
Another incident on the scale of the Abqaiq attack might be impossible to ignore. Last Friday Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced the deployment of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia. This is a political as well as a military measure. Like the troops in Berlin during the Cold War, those American forces will serve as a tripwire. If Iran launches an unprovoked attack against Americans who are conducting a necessary and lawful defensive mission, Washington’s calculus could change in a heartbeat.
The mix of military restraint and sanctions resolve has worked well for Washington so far. Even Iran hawks are happy with the impact the sanctions are having. But the chances of a military confrontation between Iran and the U.S. are rising, not falling. Strategic patience in Washington matched by strategic realism in Tehran is the world’s best hope for peace.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.