If Donald Trump does not find a way out of the impasse he finds himself in with Iran, history may consider his decision to go to war the defining mistake of his presidency. So far, however, he has avoided another potentially catastrophic mistake: the massive escalation of the conflict beyond his ability to control. History shows that presidents who have escalated wars in an attempt to find a way out, or to protect their own prestige or the reputation of the United States, have entered a path of no return. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, they did so reluctantly, in wars that were already unwinnable. Not for the first time, Trump finds himself at a three-way crossroads, in a war that is already being driven by Iran’s refusal to surrender or negotiate seriously.
If diplomacy continues to fail, is he willing to prolong indefinitely the campaign of airstrikes, fragile ceasefires, and US and Iranian naval blockades? Or will he intensify the US offensive by lifting the restrictions he has imposed on himself and going beyond primarily military targets to strike Iranian infrastructure and civilian targets, even crossing the “Rubicon” (crossing a line that carries major and irreversible consequences) and using ground troops in limited operations?
The third option would be very painful: to admit that it would be better for him and the United States to limit losses and withdraw from the conflict, leaving the main objectives unresolved. Each of these alternatives brings uncomfortable political and strategic responses, which explains why Trump remains locked in a war he can neither afford to win nor lose. The situation has become so difficult that the Pentagon, according to an exclusive report by CNN, has asked a group of military analysts for new ideas on how to punish Iran.
IRAN’S “BEHEAVY” WARNING
Trump’s displeasure was clearly reflected on his Truth Social network on Monday, after Iran rejected his latest attempt. He had suspended the devastating attacks he had warned of over the weekend, reiterating once again that a deal could be close. “The Iranian leadership is extremely deceitful!” Trump wrote, ironically using the same language that the Islamic Republic often uses to criticize its pressure-based diplomacy. But in the afternoon he returned to the threats.
“This is the last chance for them to make a good deal,” he said in the Oval Office. However, his warning that Iran could face “beheading” raises another question: What will Trump do if Tehran ignores him this time? Any major escalation on Trump’s part would be a dangerous move, as there is no sign that bombing could force Iran back to the negotiating table.
Iran is likely to respond to attacks on bridges, power plants and other infrastructure by striking similar targets on the territory of US allies in the Persian Gulf, further increasing the economic cost of the war. This is precisely the scenario, in all likelihood, that Regional leaders raised with Trump over the weekend. “We were ready to act. Then they called. Saudi Arabia called. The United Arab Emirates called. Qatar called,” Trump announced. In theory, Trump could use the US Navy to force open the Strait of Hormuz. But that would expose US ships to Iranian missiles and drones. Meanwhile, ground operations against the oil export terminal on Kharg Island or to push Iranian forces out of the strait could prove very bloody.
The experience of the last 60 years shows that the risk increases exponentially when an air war turns into a ground war. The conflict begins to be viewed differently even by Americans at home. The political cost increases with the increase in casualties, something Trump cannot afford just weeks before the midterm elections.
Moreover, when soldiers lose their lives trying to find an exit strategy, their sacrifices can paradoxically prolong the war, because no one wants them to seem in vain. Many American presidents have faced similar dilemmas. Although the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now the conflict with Iran began under different circumstances, they all boiled down to the same formula: accept a bad “status quo,” escalate the conflict, or leave. And no president wants to be remembered as the one who lost a war.
HOW DID JOHNSON AND BUSH FALL INTO THE SAME TRAP?
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson was faced with the dilemma of whether to expand the Vietnam War, inherited from the assassinated President John F. Kennedy. “We have already begun bombing these people; we have crossed that threshold,” Johnson told Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, in a statement that somewhat echoes Trump’s strategic dilemma. “I don’t believe there is anything worse than losing. But I don’t see any way to win,” Johnson said.
However, he authorized Operation Rolling Thunder, intensified bombing of North Vietnam, and sent tens of thousands more American soldiers into the war.
He should have listened to Deputy Secretary of State George Ball, who warned in a memo that once the US began to suffer human losses, it would be “almost irreversible” and that it would face “national humiliation” if it stopped before achieving its objectives. Ball argued that continuing the war would do far more harm to US global leadership than pursuing “a carefully considered path to compromise.” The war ended Johnson’s hopes of a second term. After him, Richard Nixon inherited the Vietnam War after winning the 1968 election. Many historians believe that he and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, had already realized that victory was impossible, but continued the war in the hope of creating more favorable conditions for withdrawal and avoiding the appearance of an American defeat.
“If, when the decisive moment comes, the most powerful nation in the world, the United States, behaves like a helpless giant, then the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and institutions throughout the world,” Nixon declared on April 30, 1970, justifying the expansion of the war in Cambodia.
More than 20 American soldiers died in Vietnam during Nixon’s presidency. The last American combat troops left Vietnam in 1973, and the last American personnel were evacuated during the fall of Saigon in 1975, under Gerald Ford. More than 30 years later, President George W. Bush gave his speech on Iraq. He acknowledged that mistakes had been made, but warned in 2007 that “failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” He announced the deployment of thousands of additional troops to help Iraqi forces fight the insurgency. History has yet to deliver a definitive verdict on that strategy. The counterinsurgency was successful in some areas, but the question of whether the American losses were worth it remains a painful one, after the US eventually withdrew from Iraq.
President Barack Obama was elected on a promise to end America’s “endless wars.” Yet, eight years after the September 11 attacks that plunged the United States into Afghanistan, he announced the deployment of additional troops to halt the Taliban’s advance and ultimately destroy al-Qaeda. Aware of the escalation trap that Johnson, Nixon, and Bush had fallen into, Obama promised that the troop withdrawal would begin in mid-2011. Critics argue that setting a clear deadline encouraged U.S. adversaries to simply wait for the Americans to leave.
TRUMP GOT POWER BY SPECIFICALLY CONDEMNING THESE WARS
It was these long-running conflicts that shaped Trump’s strong criticisms, which helped him enter the White House in 2016. Four days before the election, he spoke out in a blistering attack on “wars that never end, wars that we never win.” Yet during his first term, Trump ordered more U.S. troops in Afghanistan in an effort to end the war. “My initial instinct was to withdraw, and historically I like to follow my instincts,” he said. About three years later, he blamed his first defense secretary, James Mattis, for that decision.
“I gave them more troops for a short period of time and it didn’t work,” Trump said. Today, Trump faces one of those lonely decisions he described in his 2017 speech on Afghanistan: “I’ve heard all my life that decisions are very different when you sit behind a desk in the Oval Office,” he said. The war with Iran is not George W. Bush’s war. It is Donald Trump’s own war. And how it ends will define his political legacy, as well as the fate of many people beyond the walls of the White House. (CNN)