President Trump recently described an attempted Iranian military strike on U.S. Naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz as a “love-tap.”
If that is the case, then Iran and the United States desperately need a safe word.
It appears President Trump just doesn’t get it. Tehran is testing him, and he is playing into their hands.
Taunting, teasing, and yes… humiliating an opponent is the Iranian regime’s way. In my experience as a CIA officer working the Iran issue for years, it is part of the plan.
Trump’s obvious frustration, evidenced by his reaction to Tehran’s response to his latest demands – “Garbage” – is precisely what they are looking for. They will continue to walk up to the line to poke the bear. The Iranian leadership’s broader strategy is to cause him to react impulsively, as he is prone to do, hoping he will make yet another misstep, or simply give up, make a deal, and walk away.
President Trump has also recently claimed that “I’ve had a deal with them (Iran) four or five times,” but “They change their mind. They are very dishonorable people.”
As I have written before, Tehran treats an agreement not as a final settlement, but as the opening round of a longer negotiation. That is a reality President Trump has not yet accepted.
Two things are now unmistakable:
- The U.S. administration stumbled into a situation for which it did not adequately prepare, think through, or fully understand.
- The Iranian regime, meanwhile, has been preparing for just such a scenario — militarily, economically, and mentally, for a generation. Iran’s ability to close the Strait of Hormuz without a functional Navy is proof positive of this.
As a result, we are at an extremely dangerous point, where no good choices available.
Blockading the Strait of Hormuz is inflicting growing economic pain not just on Iran but the wider world as well.
No one knows what President Trump will do next. It is not clear that he does either.
He is reactive rather than strategic, hoping something will occur that will offer a way out.
But as we all know, hope is not a plan.
At this stage, Washington is no longer positioned to unilaterally dictate terms at an acceptable cost. That leaves either escalation without a credible end state, or a negotiated outcome that entails accepting uncomfortable compromises.
If he is not willing to fully commit to pursuing regime change – a course of action that is uncertain but sure to lead to significant additional cost in treasure and lives, both American and Iranian – then only two alternatives remain:
· Resume limited air strikes. This is likely a fool’s errand as we see the regime not only still standing but seemingly stronger in some respects. While tactically impactful, it remains unlikely to force the regime to submit, and could produce unacceptable civilian casualties.
· Make a deal with Iran. One that they will accept. This will require painful concessions and is certain to include provisions that many will find objectionable, including significant sanctions relief. And it will leave the Iranian regime in place and in control of Iran. For now.
As much as I would prefer to see regime change in Iran, I believe a deal may be the only realistic way out of the Groundhog Day-like doom loop in which we find ourselves. Simply put, the administration squandered the initial opportunity presented by a unique confluence of events by its lack of strategic planning and a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran and the Iranian regime.
As a result, we are going to have to step back and take a longer view. I pity the people of Iran, at least in the near term. They are certain to suffer the brunt of the regime’s immediate ire. That is a hard truth.
This is not, however, the end of the story. Iran’s internal weaknesses still matter–and may shape what comes next more than battlefield successes. I am cautiously, very cautiously, optimistic that even barring regime change, Iran’s leadership will be forced to change direction.
The issues facing Iran prior to the War were serious, in fact existential – a collapsing economy, hyper-inflation, severe water shortages, lack of electricity, and growing widespread popular anger and unrest – and are ongoing and only getting worse. Whatever the Iranian leadership looks like, it will have to address these issues. And it is not clear that they will be capable of doing this without outside help. This is where the U.S. and hopefully our Western allies come in: sanctions relief, and extensive economic and other assistance in exchange for real changes in policy and a pullback on objectionable activities and programs. The potential for this may, and I say may, have increased with the removal of Ali Khamenei from the Supreme Leader’s seat. But it will depend on whether his son and successor, Mojtaba, is less rigidly ideological than his father. We will see if he is willing to put the Iranian people ahead of the regime.
As for a deal, any agreement that does not include JCPOA-like provisions allowing intrusive, ongoing inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities - regardless of an Iranian agreement to suspend enrichment - should be considered a failure.
Several things need to occur in concert with and following reaching a negotiated deal:
· The U.S. and Israel, ideally supported by our allies, must remain focused on preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Western Intelligence agencies, backed up by military force, are positioned to do this;
· Ensure that Iran’s primary proxies, Hezbollah and the Houthis, do not rebuild and reemerge as a threat;
· Preserve economic pressure on Iran as leverage to opening and keeping the Strait open.
The reality is that a new approach is required. Washington cannot continue to replay the same strategic errors and hope that things will change. This is the very definition of madness.