The war in Iran is not proceeding according to the US plan, argued Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, a position echoed by American military analyst Daniel Davis. Davis went so far as to say that if Iran does not surrender, the US will face a serious problem because Washington simply does not have the resources to maintain the intensity of attacks for an extended period. These assessments were "refuted" by both US President Donald Trump, who stated that the attacks will continue until all set objectives are achieved, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who emphasized that "we will finish it under the 'America First' conditions that President Trump chooses." However, Hegseth's comment fatally recalled another promise made in 2001 by a different American president. "This conflict began on the timing and terms of others; it will end in a way and at an hour of our choosing," President George W. Bush had told Americans who were just emerging wounded and largely humbled from the September 11 attacks. Shortly thereafter, Bush led America into wars that lasted nearly two decades. The question that arises is whether the Trump administration remembers the bloody lessons of the recent past.
A massive risk
The magnitude of the risk taken by Donald Trump by initiating a war alongside Israel—which has already led to the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—is reflected in the scale of the potential outcomes. The danger is that the conflict, based on a controversial rationale, will trigger chaos in the Middle East and kill thousands of civilians while creating new terrorist attacks against Americans in the future. However, there is an alternative scenario for a president who unleashed an attack on Iran that his predecessors never dared. He could achieve a strategic victory if he neutralizes the regional threat from a sworn enemy of the US for nearly 50 years and triggers the birth of... freedom in Iran. "This war started by Trump is unjustified and illegal. That does not necessarily mean it will fail," said historian and foreign policy expert Max Boot during a Council on Foreign Relations conference call on Monday, while blasting the president for arrogance.
The 3 scenarios
As the war enters its fourth day, the US and Israel promise to escalate the offensive in Iran; in fact, President Trump, following the Iranian attack on the American embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, announced "shocking" retaliation, stating that Iran "hasn't seen anything yet." The remaining leadership in Tehran is determined to cause regional chaos. Three broad scenarios seem likely:
-
The most optimistic scenario for the US and its allies is that days of airstrikes on the repressive organs of the Iranian state could trigger a popular uprising. A new Iran could transform the Middle East.
-
A more complex, and perhaps more likely, scenario is that Iran's surviving leaders establish a new regime. Even then, the US operation could succeed by destroying the nuclear, missile, and military capabilities that make Iran a regional threat. This may be acceptable to Israel, but it could lead to future wars to prevent the reconstruction of the new Iranian regime's capabilities.
-
The worst-case scenario is that Iran will resemble Libya, with a power vacuum in a state destroyed by years of authoritarianism. Internal conflicts or civil war could erupt, causing chaos, a refugee crisis, and leaving Iran's uranium stockpiles vulnerable to extremist groups.
Where it can go wrong
If Americans are confused about what is coming—it is not something that should come as a surprise—as the administration continues to shift its arguments for the war. Trump has invoked regime change and the desire to give Iranians their freedom. He promised to destroy a nuclear program that he already claimed he had eliminated. Hegseth emphasized the need for vengeance for Americans killed by Iranian terrorist attacks or by paramilitary groups supported by Iran during the American occupation of Iraq. Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that the US was conducting a preemptive war because Israel was planning to attack Iran and American troops in the region would have faced retaliation.
Do they know why they went to war?
If this vague logic reflects an administration that does not know why it went to war, the campaign may already be facing problems. "There really is no clear strategy. And we need to hear from the president what he wants," Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen told CNN. "This is an opportunity for a real turning point in the Middle East if we succeed. But it is not at all clear how it will evolve," Shaheen said.
Trump's trick
For Trump, however, ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. By keeping the war goals vague, he creates political space to declare victory whenever he wants. It appears he has learned a lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan: large-scale ground wars carry the risk of stalemates.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών