Trump administration claims ‘victory’ over Iran — here’s the report card

It’s hard to imagine a harsher indictment of Donald Trump’s disastrous war on Iran than his secretary of state, Marco Rubio. On May 5, his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, told reporters that the main goal now is to get the Strait of Hormuz “back to what it was before: anyone can use it, there are no mines in the water, no one pays tolls.”

He argued that this was a completely separate defense and humanitarian operation that would only turn into a war if American ships were attacked, which they did on the same day. Rubio ignores the glaring contradiction that humanitarian action is necessary for a war he simultaneously claims to have won.

Later that day, things took an even more ridiculous turn. Just one day later, Trump announced the suspension of Project Freedom, the U.S. Navy’s plan to escort oil tankers out of the strait.

The US president said “tremendous progress” had been made towards reaching a deal with Iran. As has happened several times now, global stock markets rose and then fell again.

While few doubt that Trump is eager to put this disastrous war behind him, especially before traveling to Beijing on May 14, he has grossly exaggerated the impression of a breakthrough. The Iranians are just considering the 14-point proposal for 30 days of negotiations aimed at a lasting end to the war.

The more compelling reason for Trump to abandon the liberal plan is that it is clear that it will not solve the crisis. Most owners of the 1,500 ships currently stranded behind the strait are unwilling to risk passage, even with a naval escort.

Iran responded by attacking shipping and firing missiles at the United Arab Emirates, threatening the ceasefire itself.

The problem for Washington is that if Trump agrees to end the economic blockade of Iran’s maritime trade, the Iranians may insist that they can only begin negotiations and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. blockade is causing severe damage to the Iranian economy.

If nothing else, Iranian officials see ending the blockade as logical reciprocity. But they also understand that time is running out – if not already – before the closure of the strait causes lasting structural damage to the global economy. This has increased their current influence.

However, even as negotiations began, the same problems that had prevented an agreement before the war remained. Trump lacks the detailed and institutionalized policy machinery of his predecessor, Barack Obama, who is eager to move beyond the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

Obama’s deal took 20 months of intense debate to finalize. Trump has neither the patience, the technical expertise, nor the direct diplomatic connections to make this happen.

Added to this were the new conditions created by the war itself. The fragmentation of Iran’s decision-making process and the elite’s greater tolerance for military and economic pressure have brought uncertainty to the situation.

Iran now realizes that it has the ability to shut down a vital artery in the global economy, thereby gaining greater influence.

huge failure

–

The answer to the nuclear question may just be a fabrication. Iran is likely to agree to a suspension of uranium enrichment activities, but has not yet agreed to ship out or dilute its enriched uranium – but this possibility cannot be ruled out in order to prolong negotiations.

If Tehran’s slightly more moderate minds prevail – which remains a big if – then this would be a significant concession. Iran’s geographic advantages and ballistic missile capabilities already create a credible deterrent against future attacks.

The question is whether Trump can accept anything less than total capitulation on the nuclear issue, and whether he is willing to resist Israel’s inevitable pushback from blurring that red line. If not, he has threatened to resume bombing with “a higher intensity” than before.

There are serious doubts, however, that he has the stomach for it. Even if he did, it’s hard to see how U.S. and Israeli bombing could force the Iranian regime to surrender.

Trump’s changing war objectives and desperate push for withdrawal underscore the entire plan as a colossal strategic failure. It would define his legacy, reshape the Middle East and bring further suffering to the Iranian people — the exact opposite of what he has repeatedly said he wants to do.

The war shattered the confidence of U.S. regional allies in Washington’s ability to protect them. It also alienates America’s traditional allies, who are blamed and punished for failing to solve problems they neither caused nor can solve.

The U.S. and Israeli attacks have further entrenched a brutal regime with which it is now more difficult to negotiate, while completely marginalizing moderate voices within Iran.

If the negotiations are successful, the success touted by the US president and his advisers – the destruction of part of Iran’s military-industrial capabilities and navy – will be real. While in the former case this may only be temporary, in the latter case it is clearly not important for maintaining freedom of navigation.

The only positive is that Trump’s brief experiment in military adventurism, an aberration even in his own chaotic political trajectory, may now be ending. SKS

SKS

This article was generated from automated news agency feeds without modifications to the text.