If military pressure could not force Iran to surrender, why does Washington believe that repeating an economic policy applied for decades can yield a different outcome, many analysts wonder.
Following the impasse and the military... humiliation, the President of the US, Donald Trump, decided to change course and open a new front against Iran...
Not with missiles, but with dollars, sanctions, oil, and banks.
With the phrase «economic D-Day», the American President is attempting to present the new campaign of economic asphyxiation as the ultimate weapon against Tehran.
And the question arises effortlessly: is this truly a new demonstration of power, or an admission that the military option did not deliver the outcome Washington expected?
Analysts, including many Americans, argue that this new strategy by Donald Trump is nothing more than a tested «tool» that has been applied for decades against Iran and has already failed...
It is for this very reason that they emphasize that this objective of Donald Trump, to force Iran to surrender, will not be achieved either.
Others point out that the higher Donald Trump raises the stakes, the greater the risk that the renowned «economic D-Day» will prove to be not the beginning of an Iranian retreat, but the start of a new, far more expensive crisis for Washington itself.
These are admissions showing that the Americans are beginning to become dangerously addicted... to defeat...
Unprecedented economic war
Donald Trump, in his most recent message, announced the launch of what he described as «the most crushing economic operation ever conducted against any country», writing: «This will be economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale».
He threatened that any country that allows its financial institutions, businesses, airports, or state entities to offer Iran «any form of lifeline» will face «enormous economic consequences».
Donald Trump also targeted oil sales, swap deals, cash transfers, currency exchanges, ship registrations, and front companies, concluding: «This will be an economic D-Day».
What is D-Day
In military terminology, D-Day refers to the day of the launch of the major and decisive operation of June 6, 1944, when the Normandy landings began, the major offensive of the Allies against Nazi Germany in Europe.
Therefore, when Donald Trump speaks of an «economic D-Day», he seeks to create the image of the beginning of an all-out economic offensive against Iran, an assault that, instead of missiles and bombs, will utilize sanctions, oil, banks, shipping, and pressure on financial networks.
Repeating the same mistake
However, behind this aggressive rhetoric lies a more important reality: Donald Trump continues to repeat the very same miscalculation he made on February 28.
On that day, the United States and the Israeli regime entered the war estimating that Iran's ability to respond, its resilience, and its capacity to resist had been significantly weakened, and that a powerful military strike could lead Tehran either to collapse or to retreat and accept Washington's will.
Donald Trump even went so far as to claim that he himself would determine the next leader of Iran.
The pivot
Yet the total, high-intensity war against Iran not only failed to produce the outcome expected in Washington, but now, following the US failure on the battlefield, Donald Trump, instead of announcing victory, speaks of the launch of an «economic war» and returns to the methods of his predecessors, which he himself had fiercely criticized.
This pivot, in itself, signifies a shift in the arena of confrontation.
Donald Trump, who was supposed to change the equation with Iran through military power, is now returning to the instruments of sanctions and economic pressure.
The difference is that this time too he is underestimating Iran's actual capabilities and entering yet another uncharted domain.
Heavy costs
On the other hand, the cost of this course for the United States cannot be ignored either.
The American national debt has now surpassed $40 trillion, and interest servicing costs have evolved into one of the heaviest expenditures in the federal budget, creating severe challenges for the political, economic, and even military structure of the United States.
Energy market under pressure
At the same time, the American energy market is under pressure.
The price of diesel has reached approximately $5.47 per gallon, a level approaching an all-time record.
The Financial Times contends that the surge in diesel prices drives up the cost of transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing, transmitting inflationary pressures throughout the entire economy.
The importance of diesel is even greater than that of gasoline, because it is directly tied to freight costs, trucks, agricultural machinery, construction, and the distribution supply chain.
Therefore, an increase in its price does not only mean more expensive fuel, but also leads to higher production and transport costs and, ultimately, to price increases across consumer goods.
Political burden
As the congressional midterm elections approach, such pressure could carry a heavy political cost for the administration of Donald Trump.
The increase in gasoline prices has already significantly burdened American households, with estimates speaking of tens of billions of dollars in additional expenses paid by American consumers.
Failure... the economic D-Day
From this perspective, the «economic D-Day» does not necessarily constitute an indication of strength by Donald Trump; on the contrary, it represents a clear sign of his attempt to compensate for the lack of results on the battlefield.
Given his erroneous assessment of Iran's economic capabilities, trade networks, and resilience, just as he had misjudged its military capabilities prior to entering the war, this new step is not going to lead to the outcome desired by Washington.
Donald Trump underestimated Iran's capacity to respond once, and the result was a war that failed to achieve its stated political objectives and ended in a substantive defeat.
Now, the same miscalculation is being repeated in the form of an «economic war».
And this time too, the reality of Iran is far removed from Donald Trump's calculations.
The «economic D-Day» will not be the day of Iran's surrender, but the beginning of the second defeat of Donald Trump's strategy and the worsening of the crisis for himself, and indeed ahead of elections in which the economy and fuel prices may prove to be decisive issues.
Strategic impasse
This shift in course—from military operations to economic warfare, can be considered one of the most significant indicators of Washington's strategic impasse vis-à-vis Iran.
At the start of the 40-day war, the rhetoric of the Trump administration focused on a swift victory and the imposition of American will.
However, the prolongation of the conflict and the continuation of Iranian resistance showed that the equation did not unfold as had been calculated in Washington.
Now Donald Trump speaks of launching the «fiercest economic operation» against Iran.
The core question, however, remains: if military pressure could not force Iran to surrender, why does Washington believe that repeating an economic policy applied for decades can yield a different outcome?
Return to an already tested policy
A report by the Chinese network CGTN regarding Donald Trump's new strategy focuses precisely on this doubt.
The outlet, examining «Trump's economic war against Iran», points out that many of the new US measures are in reality a continuation of the same policies implemented in previous years.
Following decades of sanctions, Iran has established various networks to counter financial and commercial restrictions.
Therefore, the new sanctions do not necessarily entail the creation of a new tool; in many instances, it is simply a more intensive use of an old tool.
Even if these pressures can burden the Iranian economy, the fundamental problem for the US remains: sanctions are considered politically successful when they manage to alter the behavior of the opposing side.
To date, there are no clear indications that increasing economic pressure alone can force Tehran to accept Washington's demands.
Experts issue warnings
Robert Malley, former US Special Envoy for Iran, has also warned against precisely this logic.
As he has stated, the notion that «since economic pressure did not yield results, then more economic pressure will certainly yield results» can be misleading and logically flawed.
And a portion of American experts and political figures questions the effectiveness of this approach.
American journalist Laura Rozen has also assessed that the new sanctions constitute, to an extent, an attempt by Washington to show that it is still «doing something», so as not to be forced to move once again toward military escalation.
If this assessment is correct, Donald Trump's «economic war» should not be viewed as a strategic innovation, but as an effort to manage an impasse, an impasse in which the US cannot easily achieve its military objectives and, at the same time, does not want to acknowledge its failure or limitations.
The major contradiction
Under these circumstances, economic pressure appears to be a lower-cost tool compared to direct war.
However, this tool is not without cost either.
Democratic Senator Jack Reed has warned that Iran exerts influence in the global energy sector and is not going to remain idle in the face of intense pressure.
In his view, increasing pressure on Tehran could trigger regional reactions.
This point reveals one of the core contradictions of Donald Trump's policy.
Washington is attempting to raise the cost of pressure for Iran, but Iran can also pass part of this cost onto the US, its allies, and the global market. Consequently, economic pressure is not necessarily a one-way street.
The threat against China
One of the most significant problems of Donald Trump's new policy concerns its actual enforcement at an international level.
Washington has threatened that countries and organizations assisting Iran in financial, petroleum, and commercial matters will face sanctions.
However, such a policy can be enforced only if the US manages to compel Iran's major economic partners to comply as well.
French analyst Arnold Bernard has expressed, in this context, doubts as to whether imposing sanctions on China is truly feasible.
He recalls that the US had attempted in the past to target certain Chinese refineries purchasing Iranian crude, but Beijing's reaction and the potential cost of sanctioning major Chinese financial institutions hindered the serious enforcement of this policy.
This issue is of major significance.
Sanctions against Iran are one thing, and the attempt to enforce them on China is something entirely different.
If Washington, in order to implement its new policy, is forced to target major Chinese banks and financial institutions, then the matter will no longer concern merely «pressure on Iran», but could escalate into an economic and financial crisis between two of the world's greatest powers.
This is why the claim of the «fiercest economic operation» will be tested in practice when the US attempts to carry out its threats.
Empty threats or the beginning of a new crisis?
Analysts describe Donald Trump's threats mostly as «media noise and empty threats», arguing that there are not many tools available to implement such a policy without the US having to endure retaliation.
At the same time, they emphasize that even if Washington's threats are serious, Iran is both prepared to withstand the cost and pressure, and equipped with means it can use to impose costs on the US, its partners, and the global economy.
This statement highlights an important reality: pressure against Iran is not exerted in a vacuum.
Iran is not simply an economy under a sanctions regime; it is a country with a significant position in the energy sector, a strategic geographic location, and a network of regional ties.
The more US pressure increases, the more the likelihood of reactions increases, a fact that could drive up the cost of Donald Trump's policy.
CNN and the admission of a war of attrition
The American network CNN, in its own analysis of Donald Trump's new strategy, also highlighted that the success of an economic war against Iran requires months or even years of continuous pressure, as well as the cooperation of China, Europe, and regional countries.
This is perhaps the most significant difference between Donald Trump's initial promises and today's situation.
The war that was supposed to be brief has dragged on.
The military pressure that was supposed to force Iran to surrender reached an impasse.
And now the policy intended to replace the war itself requires a multi-year process of attrition.
This distance between promises and reality constitutes the most significant vulnerability of Donald Trump's policy toward Iran.
At the beginning of the war, Washington spoke of a swift shift in power dynamics.
Today, however, achieving its economic goals is framed around continuous pressure over the coming months or even the coming years.
This change in rhetoric alone shows how far removed from reality the initial US calculations regarding Iran's capabilities and resolve truly were.
New policy or admission of failure?
Ultimately, Donald Trump's new economic policy cannot be analyzed independently of the outcome of the military war.
Had the US achieved its military objectives, there would essentially be no need to announce a new and sweeping «economic operation».
The return to even harsher sanctions under present conditions demonstrates that the military instrument failed to produce the political result that Washington anticipated.
To be sure, sanctions can burden Iran and increase pressure on its economy and energy market.
However, inflicting economic costs and securing a political victory are two different concepts.
Donald Trump is now trying a formula that many previous American administrations had used against Iran.
Sweeping sanctions, «maximum pressure», secondary sanctions, and efforts to cut Iran off from the global economy have been implemented repeatedly in the past.
Therefore, the core issue is not whether the US can exert greater pressure, it probably can.
The question is whether this additional pressure can achieve the very goal that military pressure failed to accomplish.
It appears that, after six months, Washington is not returning with a new strategy, but with an intensified version of the same old policy, a policy tested for decades without managing to force Iran to surrender.
In this sense, Donald Trump's «economic war», rather than signaling a new American strength, could represent an indication of the narrowing of available US options vis-à-vis Iran: repeating the same pressure that was supposed to force Tehran to surrender, but which, following failure on the battlefield, has once again become Washington's primary instrument.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών