The Prospect of War With Iran

In his latest Wall Street Journal column Walter Russell Mead writes about the likelihood of war with Iran:

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.

One of the considerations he omits is the recent elections in Israel. If Likud is out or Israel cobbles together a “unity government”, it seems to me that the prospects for war with Iran are greatly reduced.

Who is actually pushing for war with Iran in the United States? As far as I can tell only neoconservatives (who are mostly #NeverTrumpers) and strong supporters of Israel. If Israel takes a less combative stance than it has in recent years as seems likely, perhaps some of the drumbeat for war will be stilled.

7 comments… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    Fracking has not made us independent of Gulf oil. The Gulf supplies 20% of world consumption and 40% of EU consumption. If oil exports from the Gulf were suspended for a time, we would have to share our oil production with our allies in Asia and Europe. That would lead to shortages, and likely rationing, in the US. Failure to share our oil would lead to the destruction of our alliance system and our political isolation.

    The Iranian missiles can shut down Gulf oil exports. They also can reach American bases from eastern Afghanistan to northeastern Africa. While our air power could eliminate the Iranian navy and air force in short order, it would be useless against Iranian missiles, which are mobile and easily hidden in the mountainous terrain of Iran. We couldn’t find Iraqi Scuds “hidden” in the flat, open desert of Iraq.

    Preventing missile launches from Iran would require the invasion and occupation of Iran. We do not have sufficient ground forces to do that. In Viet Nam, the South Vietnamese government fielded over 1,000,000 million men, controlled all the cities and towns and most of the countryside. We put 550,000 troops in country.Yet we lost. We will have no allies in an Iranian war. We would lose that war, too.

    Mead is too enamored of American military power, and doesn’t understand it very real limitations. The war in Afghanistan seemed to have slipped his attention and that of Pompeo and the neocons, as well. We can destroy any country on earth, and a few can destroy us. But we cannot conquer anyone.

  • I think our situation today is much the same as it was 50 years ago. We are militarily strong and politically weak.

    I should also mention that as long as KSA is the low-cost supplier with significant reserves the notion that we are independent of Gulf oil is, at the least, highly exaggerated.

  • Grey Shambler Link

    @BobSykes listed our weaknesses. Our economy is our strength. We should continue to move away from reliance on anything the M.E. produces, and so should our allies. Those missile targets needed to be hardened ten years ago if we are vulnerable to Iranian missiles, we are vulnerable to others. As to our will to wage war, we wait. The Iranians will either provide us with that will or they won’t. I can’t tell what a zealous theocracy will do.

  • steve Link

    I think bob mostly has it correct. I would just add that while we may be close to energy independence if you assume that we can use everything interchangeably, but we really dont do that right now so it would take a while to replace some of our imported oil with natural gas. We likely see large increases in price.

    Also, while bob didnt say it but I suspect he would agree, Iran has had plenty of time to plan and plenty of experience with working against an occupation. We should expect to lose a lot of lives, and just exactly what would be our end game?

    Steve

  • Greyshambler Link

    By the will to fight, I mean an action could be taken by Iran not false flag.

  • Guarneri Link

    I heard an interview with Rouhani (sp?) today. Little did I know that Iran was the most stalwart guardian in the world against terrorism. Tell your friends. Oh, and that the US was the country that needed to have its nuclear production monitored because, well, you know, Hiroshima.

    I understand public posturing, but I have to confess, I didn’t leave the experience thinking that talking was going to be fruitful.

  • I didn’t realize his English was that good. He’s using the rarely used definition of guardian as “financier”.

Leave a Comment