(Adnkronos) – It is possible that the Iranians are betting that time is on their side, while Donald Trump has to make a decision and, faced with complex choices, is discovering that every escalation plan and every negotiation strategy involve inevitable compromises. This is the analysis of the New York Times, which emphasizes how, in the end, history will determine whether he effectively blocked the controversial Iranian nuclear program or if he ended up strengthening Iran’s determination to acquire a nuclear weapon, whether he weakened the hardline leadership or made it even stronger.
“The fear is that Trump will come to the conclusion that he is facing his worst nightmare for the next two years, which is to go down in history as a loser,” observes William F. Wechsler, director of Middle East programs at the Atlantic Council and former senior Pentagon official with responsibility for counterterrorism policies. “And he might conclude that the only way out is to win the war. This could lead to the decision to restart large-scale military operations, if not immediately, then in the coming months.” New attacks against Iran are “highly unlikely” provided there is progress in negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump told CNN yesterday.
The crux of the matter, according to involved individuals cited by the newspaper, is that Trump and his associates disagree on the objectives they intend to pursue. According to US officials, the most ambitious option, developed by US and Israeli military personnel, envisions a short but intense operation lasting a few days, which would likely target Iran’s energy infrastructure, nuclear sites, and missile and drone arsenals. The sources, however, emphasized that they do not expect a few days of fighting to have repercussions on the government, and for this reason, Americans are focusing on constant economic pressure. Any option involving large-scale combat operations would include attacks carried out by aircraft taking off from two aircraft carriers present in the region (a third is expected to arrive within three weeks), by jets present at Middle Eastern bases, and by B-1 and B-2 bombers. And, the Nyt emphasizes, in recent weeks, US and Israeli forces have intensified exercises, with overflights over Iraq for training. According to officials cited by the newspaper, the US recently provided Israel with an additional Patriot battery.
Much has been said about Pickaxe Mountain and the possibility of the US using the ‘mother of all bombs’ (Moab) to potentially strike energy infrastructure and sites associated with Iran’s nuclear program. But, experts cited by the newspaper explain, the Moab explodes on the surface, generating an enormous deflagration, and would probably not be able to destroy an underground site like the one believed to exist at Pickaxe Mountain.
Thus today, the newspaper highlights, a military campaign lasting a few days would inflict further damage on Iran’s already compromised missile and drone arsenal, and might perhaps lead Tehran to accept limitations on its nuclear program and guarantee the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. But, the Nyt notes, it hasn’t worked in the past, and Iran would react by striking Gulf countries, almost certainly triggering a surge in global energy prices and inflation. Tehran has also clearly stated that it would target data centers and submarine cables through which internet traffic passes.
The second military option, the newspaper’s analysis continues, would result in a more circumscribed and scaled-down version of the first plan, and sources believe that many energy-related targets would likely be excluded, with attacks focusing mostly on military and nuclear sites, based on the conviction that Iran would be less inclined to react by striking energy infrastructure in Gulf countries in retaliation. In this case, according to the Nyt, Trump could claim that the US had inflicted further damage on the Iranian arsenal and declare victory, while also preserving the Pentagon’s interceptor stockpiles. But a limited attack would not achieve any of the objectives set by Trump at the beginning of the conflict and would leave Iran with significant leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.
If history teaches that a diplomatic solution is the only way to impose long-term limits on a country’s nuclear program, according to many experts, Trump might consider himself lucky if he managed to obtain limitations similar to those provided by the 2015 international agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, from which the US had withdrawn during his first term in the White House. But it is not clear who makes the decisions in Iran.
In this scenario, if the status quo were to continue, a naval blockade would prevent Iran from exporting oil, while US patrols would ensure the daily transit of 11-18 million barrels of non-Iranian oil. This would allow Trump to avoid making a decision, and the tycoon could also try to negotiate a limited agreement for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, maintaining sanctions and leaving it to the Arab Gulf countries to find an understanding with the Iranians on the management of Hormuz. However, such an agreement would not address the nuclear and missile program dossiers.
Focusing on the long term, the Nyt concludes, requires patience, a quality that is not among Trump’s strengths, but it could prove to be the most effective way, over time, to ‘crack’ the Iranian leadership. However, maintaining the blockade is costly, and in a stalemate situation, European and Arab allies are unlikely to participate, and in addition to further suffering for Iranians, the conflict could drag on for the remaining years of Trump’s presidency.
