Trump’s Iran war has no endgame

US President Donald Trump started the war on Iran on 28 February, apparently relying on an assessment by Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency. He appears to have been told that the theocratic regime established in Iran in 1979 was deeply unpopular and would either disappear into thin air or surrender once Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated and the US and Israel subjected the country to several days of intense bombing.

Trump naively imagined that this would resemble the easy kidnapping operation in Venezuela in which former president Nicolás Maduro was captured.

In short, the Mossad assessment, combined with Trump’s profound ignorance of Iran, gave him immense confidence that victory would come quickly.

By now it appears that Trump has lost the war.

Max Boot, a senior fellow at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, has concluded that Trump’s memorandum of understanding with Iran has collapsed, leaving the US “with few good options.”

Boot writes that “after Iran’s attacks on merchant shipping killed the ceasefire, Trump said he would reimpose the US blockade and resume air strikes. But with no military path to regime change and the war already deeply unpopular at home, the president faces the same strategic dilemmas that have defined the conflict from the start.”

Let us dig deeper. Why did Iran attack merchant shipping and thereby “kill the ceasefire”? Does Boot imply that it was entirely Iran’s doing? That is not the case.

In Tehran’s view, Washington violated the memorandum first. Iran was responding to one violation with another.

Article 5 of the memorandum, signed with much fanfare on 17 June at the Palace of Versailles, states:

“The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.”

In simple English, Washington conceded that the future administration of the Strait of Hormuz was to be determined by Iran in consultation with Oman and the other Gulf coastal states.

The US did not abide by this understanding. It arranged with Oman for tankers to take a route closer to the Omani coast while US aircraft provided security cover. The tankers were also reportedly encouraged to switch off their automatic identification systems.

Iran responded by instructing vessels to take a route closer to its coast and attacked tankers that disobeyed.

While attending the NATO summit in Ankara on 8 July, Trump met NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. At a joint press appearance, Trump said negotiations between the US and Iran would continue, but added of the agreement, “For me, I think it’s over.”

Obviously, Trump wants to ride two horses, diplomacy and military action, at the same time. Anyone who tries to ride two horses simultaneously runs the risk of falling between them.

For eight days, US Central Command has bombed Iran. The command says the attacks are intended to degrade Iran’s ability to control the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump, however, has threatened to continue bombing until Iran agrees to return to the negotiating table on his terms. In short, Trump wants Iran to sign on the dotted line.

Iran has responded defiantly. The renewed attacks began even before the country had taken final leave of the assassinated supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Mashhad on 9 July.

We may recall that the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, had said that although he had reservations about the memorandum, he was permitting President Masoud Pezeshkian to sign it because the president was confident it would work.

Millions of Iranians reportedly attended the late supreme leader’s funeral ceremonies. His coffin was also taken to Karbala in Iraq.

The funeral had been delayed because of fears that Israel might attack the procession. The memorandum created the opportunity for it to take place.

It was obvious from the scale of the funeral that Israel’s assassination of the supreme leader had indirectly increased popular support for the regime, contrary to Mossad’s calculations.

During the funeral, mourners chanted “Death to Netanyahu” and “Death to Trump.” Do such chants imply that the Iranian government is plotting to kill Trump? No.

Moreover, Iran does not possess the same ability as Mossad to kill foreign leaders abroad.

Nevertheless, The New York Times reported that Trump left Turkey on 8 July aboard the older Air Force One rather than the newer Qatari-donated Boeing 747-8.

According to people briefed on the arrangements, the switch was made at the urging of the Secret Service as a security precaution linked to the resumption of hostilities with Iran.

Netanyahu, however, spotted an opportunity.

A couple of days later, on 11 July, The Wall Street Journal reported that concerns about the newer aircraft’s defensive capabilities and Israeli intelligence about a possible threat also influenced the decision.

Trump appeared to accept the Israeli intelligence and warned Iran that it would be completely destroyed if it attempted to kill him. He also said he had issued a standing order for Iran to be destroyed if he were assassinated.

Trump is, of course, getting carried away. If he were killed, the vice president would assume the presidency and decide what action the US should take.

All this shows that Trump continues to take Mossad seriously. He has not yet learned that Mossad can also get things wrong.

In this context, let us examine the present state of US-Israel relations.

Two statements by US Vice President J.D. Vance are significant.

Vance has said that sections of the Israeli government spent money in the US to influence political leaders and to persuade them that the memorandum was a bad agreement.

He added that foreign governments routinely try to influence political leaders in Washington, but said he was particularly disturbed when such spending caused leaders to change their positions.

Vance also claimed that Jeffrey Epstein had contacts with intelligence officials at “the highest levels” in Israel. More surprisingly, he added that Epstein had contacts at the “upper and highest levels” of US intelligence as well.

After speaking to Trump by telephone, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would travel to Washington to meet the president. So far, there has been no indication of when that visit will take place.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that Trump asked Netanyahu to halt Israeli military intervention in Syria and Lebanon. Israel has not yet obliged.

Iran remains in a defiant mood. It has targeted US bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and even Syria. It is important to note that Iran has so far spared Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Iran has also asked Yemen’s Houthis to close the Bab el-Mandeb strait if Trump carries out his threat to attack Iranian power plants.

More than 7% of global seaborne energy trade passes through that narrow strait, making it highly vulnerable to disruption.

Reuters has reported that the Houthis have moved missiles and drones closer to the strait and that Iranian Revolutionary Guard personnel in Yemen would oversee any decision to act.

Saudi Arabia sends a substantial share of its oil exports through the Bab el-Mandeb route. Will Brent crude rise from about $85 a barrel to $100?

The principal decision-maker remains Trump.

In a national address on 16 July, he claimed that China had electronically interfered in the 2020 US presidential election and that he would have won but for that interference.

Such claims demonstrate his capacity to fantasize.

Will he now order a ground invasion of Iran while fantasizing about an immediate victory?

Nothing, alas, can be ruled out.

Any ground invasion would result in the death of the US military. As on 20 July, the toll is 17. Trump has been steadily losing public support for the war.

Not far from Martin Luther King’s grey stone memorial in Washington is a big golden cup honouring Donald Trump. The “Iran War Participation Trophy”, erected by anonymous satirists, suggests that
on the battlefield it is not the winning that counts but the taking part.

“While some concern themselves with…measurable outcomes, President Trump demonstrated the courage to participate,” reads the inscription.