The U.S. military has assembled a formidable armada in the Middle East, including two aircraft carrier strike groups and dozens of additional aircraft. It is the largest array of U.S. warplanes in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. All signs suggest that military action against Iran could be imminent. The question is why. President Donald Trump isn’t explaining why he’s acting or what he hopes to achieve, so the world can only speculate.
The original impetus for U.S. military action was the Iranian regime’s bloody repression of protests in early January. On Jan. 13, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! … HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!” By the end of the month, it was too late to help the protesters: They had already been crushed, with heavy casualties. Trump had missed his moment to act, assuming he wanted to do so, because there were simply not enough U.S. forces in the region to go to war with Iran. The Gerald R. Ford strike group, for example, had been sent to the Caribbean as part of the operation to abduct Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela.
But rather than give up on military action against Iran, Trump simply shifted his rationale. On Jan. 28, he wrote on Truth Social: “Hopefully Iran will quickly ‘Come to the Table’ and negotiate a fair and equitable deal — NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS. … Time is running out.”
So now the threat of military action was to get Iran to make a deal to end its nuclear program — the very same program that Trump claimed to have “obliterated” in U.S. airstrikes last summer. (The White House website still displays a news release calling suggestions otherwise “fake news.”) Trump is now tacitly conceding that the Iranian nuclear program survived after all, and is apparently demanding that Iran finally end all enrichment and give up its remaining stockpile of nuclear material.
Trump has also at various times demanded that Iran surrender its ballistic missiles and end support for proxies in the region. Oh, and he has hinted at regime change as a goal. On Feb. 13, he said a change of government in Tehran “would be the best thing that could happen.”
So what, if anything, can the mullahs do to avoid U.S. airstrikes? Stop repression? Stop their nuclear program? Stop their ballistic missile program? Stop their support for proxies? Or simply stop ruling Iran? If Iranian negotiators are as puzzled as many onlookers, it’s little wonder that talks between Tehran and Washington haven’t gotten very far. Whatever the exact U.S. demands, Iran’s rulers have given little reason to think that they are willing to make sweeping concessions, such as giving up their missile or nuclear programs, even in the face of Trump’s threats.
Rather than suffer the loss of face from backing down, Trump is likely to launch airstrikes, thereby risking Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces and allies in the region. But, while the U.S. can easily strike Iran, it’s far from clear what U.S. bombs can accomplish. It’s almost impossible to achieve regime change from the air. Indeed, bombing a country can produce a “rally around the flag” effect that only entrenches the regime.
If Trump does manage to kill senior leaders and to seriously destabilize the clerical regime, the result is likely not to be a democratic revolution (the liberal opposition is unorganized and leaderless) but a takeover by the thuggish Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It’s also possible that Iran could fracture along ethnic or sectarian lines, as with Libya or Syria in the 2010s. Neither result would be in America’s interest.
A less ambitious bombing campaign could further erode Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, but it couldn’t end those programs altogether, because Iran has the scientific and industrial capacity to resume production the second U.S. airstrikes end. Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran branch for Israeli military intelligence, wrote online on Feb. 19: “Military action can impose delay. But sustained oversight, material reduction, and enforceable limits are what meaningfully push Iran further away from a [nuclear] bomb.”
“Sustained oversight” and “enforceable limits”? Sounds an awful lot like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran nuclear deal signed by President Barack Obama in 2015 and exited by Trump in 2018, even though Iran was complying with its terms. It would be ironic if, as some hawks fear, the result of all this military buildup were merely to reprise the JCPOA.
But that’s only speculation, because Trump has not explained his plans or objectives. He hasn’t given a speech on the subject, or briefed Congress, much less asked for congressional authorization. It is yet another Trump exercise in executive authority devoid of checks or balances.
Ironically, this comes as we are about to celebrate the 250th anniversary of America’s founding. In the Declaration of Independence, the founders wrote that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Trump clearly does not share their respect for the “opinions of mankind,” because he does so little to explain his actions or try to convince any skeptics of the rightness of his cause. He simply acts — and expects Congress to get out of the way. So far, he has not been disappointed in that regard.
So now America is sleepwalking into war with Iran for reasons that remain opaque, in pursuit of objectives that remain mysterious. The only certainty is that, whatever happens, Trump will claim the biggest win ever. Perhaps Iran’s nuclear program will be “obliterated” for the second time in less than a year?
The post The U.S. is sleepwalking into war with Iran. Trump won’t explain why. appeared first on Washington Post.
