Whether you are on the right, left or center, you should pray that President Trump will avoid embroiling America in a military conflict with Tehran. Even if the cruise missiles that trashed key Saudi oil facilities last week were fired by Iranians.
Not because Iran shouldn’t pay a price for endangering global oil supplies, but because Trump’s Iran policy has blundered so badly you can be certain a military response would make things far worse.
Consider how Trump arrived at the current impasse.
Responsibility for the attack was first claimed by Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen, who are allied with Tehran. But the plot has thickened, as evidence mounts that the missiles weren’t fired from Yemen, but from Iran.
Trump’s first response to the attack was to tweet “we are locked and loaded.” Since then, despite some bluster, he’s made clear he doesn’t want war. After all, he recently fired the most avid Iran hawk in his entourage, national security adviser John Bolton. And he had recently stated he was ready to negotiate with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly session later this month.
Yet, stung by criticism of his tepid response to Iranian attacks on Gulf shipping this summer, the president may be tempted to respond militarily — even though he has promised his base to exit Mideast conflicts.
Given the willful blindness of Trump’s entire Iran policy — and the shocking weakness of his national security team — what could go right?
Start with the policy. One of the early moves of the Trump presidency was to pull out of the accord that had severely curbed Iran’s nuclear program for at least 10 to 15 years. Rather than negotiate a tighter follow-on accord, with support from European and Asian allies, the White House resorted to a campaign of “maximum pressure” — applying sanctions that severely slashed Iran’s oil exports.
But “maximum pressure” only works if you have a realistic goal toward which you are pressing your target. Instead, the White House made clear it expected total surrender from the Iranians.
“Trump only had sticks in his portfolio, no carrots, all or nothing,” says former U.S. Ambassador to Yemen Gerald Feierstein, now senior vice president at the Middle East Institute. “There was no indication of what he would exchange for incremental steps by Iran.”
Diplomatically divoid
So it’s not surprising that Iran would strike back. The missile attacks could be a possible riposte from Iranian hard-liners who are aware of Trump’s eagerness to exit the region.
Moreover, the president has virtually no experienced diplomatic team to back him up. Of course, there is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, an Iran hawk. He has turned into a presidential yes man, content to let the president operate on his instincts.
Yet those instincts set the stage for this crisis.
Maximum pressure alone won’t make Iran bend. But to isolate Iran — let alone force Tehran to change malignant behavior in the Gulf and elsewhere — Trump would need a top-notch team who could build an international coalition. And he would have to make compromises with Tehran.
The alternative is military action, which would profoundly roil global oil markets and threaten a global recession.
Of course, the president can punt, taking no action. In that case, Tehran is bound to test him further.
“Trump has backed himself into a corner,” says Feierstein. “It is hard to get out without being seen as surrendering to Iran.”
At this point, there may be no other viable choice.
