Trump’s Dangerous Game in Iran Could Spell the End of America as We Know It
The Western media, of course, fail to report the significant domestic support the Iranian regime enjoys in its opposition to Israel and America.
Is Trump serious about what many consider imminent airstrikes on Iran? From his administration’s perspective, the campaign against Iran is achieving its intended result: sowing chaos that destabilizes the regime, while flooding the internet with doctored videos depicting atrocities by Iranian security forces. This isn’t to say the regime isn’t killing protesters – it is. But producing fake news through clips on social media could have the opposite effect: Tehran could use the CIA/Mossad disinformation campaign as cover and exploit the “fog of war” to intensify its crackdown with even more casualties, arguing it has little to lose.
The Western media, of course, fail to mention the considerable domestic support the Iranian regime still enjoys in its opposition to Israel and the US. Major media outlets ignored the recent pro-government demonstrations that drew more than a million people to the streets. Iranians are smart; even those dissatisfied with their government see the game Israel and the US are playing and don’t fall for it, writes
Martin Jay .
Trump is using this period to negotiate with Tehran, but it’s worth noting that a full-fledged bombing campaign would require at least one—ideally two—aircraft carriers in the region. Currently, there are none in the region, nor are any carriers known to be en route to the Persian Gulf, despite the region’s central importance to Trump’s strategy.
Professor John Mearsheimer, one of the sharpest voices on foreign policy, doubts Trump has the courage to launch a large-scale attack with US troops, for three main reasons.
“I think what will deter [Trump] is the fact that the Iranians could close the Strait of Hormuz,” he said recently. “Secondly, the Israelis and Americans don’t have the capacity to prevent Iranian ballistic missiles from striking Israel. And thirdly—and this is very important—what is the purpose of this? What are we going to achieve? If we use military force, what is the happy ending for us? The answer is: there is no happy ending for us.”
It’s striking that the professor doesn’t confuse Israel’s interests with America’s. For Israel, toppling the Iranian regime would be the greatest victory since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. For America, the benefits of serving Israeli interests to that extent are much less clear—it would give a small country unprecedented power in the Middle East, which would inevitably cause more problems for the West. Would Israel then continue annexing parts of Lebanon, Iraq, or Jordan? Rising tensions with powerful Arab states like Saudi Arabia suggest the region could be reaching a breaking point. That’s why the kingdom and other countries have already pleaded with Trump not to attack Iran—the consequences are beyond his control.
Trump, however, has set his sights on a new regime—or one forced to accept his demands—that could offer Western investment opportunities and oil deals. His public rhetoric about human rights and assassinations is absurdly disingenuous; he doesn’t care. It’s merely a convenient pretext to sell a future attack to a gullible public.
An attack is likely because there is no realistic compromise Tehran would accept. Iran has already rejected Trump’s demand to phase out its nuclear program and uranium enrichment. What more could his team ask? To stop selling oil to China? That is equally unrealistic and would only make the regime appear weak amid domestic unrest. A possible compromise could be a change of administration and a watering down of the Supreme Leader’s powers—a shift many Iranians might support if it meant a more pragmatic, less corrupt government. A modern, Western-oriented government that downplays threats to Israel in exchange for sanctions relief would be a win-win for Trump and Iran—but not for Israel.
Such an outcome, however, is unlikely. What seems almost certain is that Trump will be backed into a corner of his own making and, to save face, will authorize attacks on Iran’s military infrastructure. The consequences will be immediate—and neither he nor his advisors have properly contextualized them. Iran will not repeat its mistake of June 12th of last year by keeping Turkey and the GCC countries out of the conflict; instead, it will destroy Israel’s military infrastructure within 48 hours. Trump fails to grasp that this is a trap: he will be drawn into a war with Iran because nothing will remain of the Israeli air force or ground facilities. He may assume that even if Iran blockades the Strait of Hormuz, US forces can clear it within hours. He may be right, but at what cost?
America’s true weakness is its political vulnerability to casualties. In 1993, all it took for Bill Clinton to withdraw from Somalia was the image of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu on the cover of Newsweek . How many dead Americans will it take for Trump to withdraw from a war with Iran? Perhaps he didn’t send an aircraft carrier to the region because he knew it would be a prime target from day one—just as he has already evacuated American troops from Qatar.
Whatever Trump is planning, it doesn’t appear to be a US-led operation—a naive and ill-considered assumption that US forces would be spared from Iranian retaliation. Even if Tehran avoided direct attacks on US targets, the regional and global consequences would be catastrophic, cementing Trump’s legacy as the first US president to ignite a global war through his own folly and vanity. Every Israeli government begs a new US president to attack Iran. Every US president has resisted—and rightly so. Will Trump fall into the trap?