The Atlantic magazine in a note by Robert Kagan one of the most influential neoconservative figures in America wrote with this introduction that President Trump likes to talk about who has the cards but it is not clear whether he has good cards to play.
Despite 37 days of US and Israeli attacks on Iran that led to the assassination of the Leader and many high level political and military officials these attacks failed to bring down the government or force it to make the slightest concession.
Also Read: Velayati Trump Warning: Ali Akbar Velayati Gives Sharp Reply to Trump Over Beijing Visit
The Trump administration hopes to achieve through blockade of Iranian ports what it could not achieve with military force but a government that did not surrender to five weeks of relentless attacks is unlikely to surrender only to economic pressure. Supporters of continuing the war want to resume military attacks but they cannot explain why new attacks would achieve what 37 days of bombing did not.
According to Kagan Trump did not stop the attacks on Iran because he got tired of them but because Iran targeted important energy facilities in the region. The turning point was March 18 when after the Zionist regime attacked the South Pars gas field Iranian armed forces targeted the Qatari Ras Laffan facility and Trump responded by announcing a ceasefire without gaining the smallest concession from Iran.
Kagan believes the risk assessment that forced Trump to retreat a month ago still stands. Even if Trump carries out his threat to destroy Iranian civilization with more attacks Iran will still be able to fire many missiles and drones before any possible fall of the government. Just a few temporary strikes from them could paralyze the oil and gas infrastructure of the region for years and plunge the world and America into a long term economic crisis and inflation.
Apparently in recent days the US President has asked the country intelligence community to assess the consequences of simply declaring victory and withdrawing from the war because hoping for regime collapse especially when this government has withstood repeated attacks is not a strategy. Trump does not have much time as oil prices approach 150 or 200 dollars per barrel along with rising inflation shortage of global food and consumer goods. Trump is not checkmated but he is close to it.
Every option except effective US surrender and withdrawal from the war carries great risks.
The American Atlantic magazine referring to the fact that any solution other than effective US surrender carries great dangers that Trump has so far not been willing to face wrote that otherwise America must prepare for full scale ground and naval war to overthrow the Iranian government then occupy the country loss of American soldiers lives and loss of warships in the strait under Iranian control. Therefore withdrawing from the war now may seem the least damaging option.
Politically Trump probably believes he has a better chance of surviving a defeat than surviving a bigger longer and more expensive war that may still end in failure. Therefore US defeat is not only possible but probable.
This defeat means Iran maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz. Contrary to common belief it is not clear that the strait will return to its previous state after the current crisis because Iran has no interest in returning to the previous situation and even moderates in Tehran know they cannot pass up this opportunity especially after Trump approved attacks similar to Pearl Harbor during negotiations and they do not consider him reliable.
Increasing isolation of Israel.
With control of the strait Iran gains power beyond its theoretical nuclear capability and can impose fees on ships and even restrict the passage of countries that do not have good relations with it. This leverage allows Tehran to dictate the lifting of sanctions and normalization of relations to countries. In this situation Israel becomes even more isolated and comes under international pressure not to provoke Tehran. Meanwhile according to experts Arab governments of the Persian Gulf whose economies were built under the umbrella of American hegemony will be forced to beg America.
Kagan concludes that US defeat in the Persian Gulf will also have broader global consequences. The whole world will see that just a few weeks of war with a second tier power has dangerously depleted US weapons stockpiles with no quick solution. This may not encourage Chinese President Xi Jinping to attack Taiwan or Russian President Vladimir Putin to intensify aggression against Europe but at least US allies in East Asia and Europe will doubt America ability in future conflicts. Global adaptation toward a post American world has accelerated and American dominance in the Persian Gulf will be just one of the losses from recent developments in West Asia.
About The Author
