Follow us on social

2020-01-08t164325z_1114336924_rc2sbe9v9rfi_rtrmadp_3_iraq-security-trump-scaled

A Pause in the Rush to War

We've avoided war for now. But the regime-change crowd in Washington won't stop trying.

Analysis | Washington Politics

We have dodged a war — for now. Iran’s restrained missile attack on two Iraqi bases and Donald Trump’s stand down from further military attacks combine to create a pause in the slide towards a catastrophic war.

Buried deep in the braggadocio and bombast of Trump’s speech on Wednesday was an important message to the Iranians: We are not planning further military action.

It could easily have gone the other way. Many in the Middle East, Europe, and America were bracing for war. This is what Fox News anchor Sean Hannity was urging Tuesday night. “Their illicit nuclear sites may finally be annihilated,” he thundered, citing six B-52s already heading to the region.

Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton similarly cheered the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. He tweeted, “now it’s on to the real job,” meaning on to the war with Iran he has long championed with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

But for Trump, this seems to be political, not ideological. It is about looking strong, not actually being strong. It is about imagery, like the astonishing Christ-like entrance Trump staged for his speech, emerging from blinding light to a podium surrounded by a dozen white men arranged like da Vinci’s apostles.

Trump appears satisfied that his impulsive assassination has boosted his ratings, distracted from his impeachment and bolstered his base. He also seems to be heeding Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s warning that war with Iran would spike oil prices and sink the economy — and Trump’s re-election.

All this was set up by Iran’s calibrated missile launches on Tuesday night. The attack was unprecedented and, before Soleimani’s killing, unthinkable. For the first time since the Iran-Iraq war, Iran launched ballistic missiles at Iraqi military bases. There were only 22 missiles and they seemed targeted intentionally to avoid casualties, which would have all but mandated a U.S. counter-strike. Analysis is on-going, but it may be that the missiles demonstrated a new level of precision, hitting military equipment, not military personnel.

Whatever Iran’s intent, Trump seems content with this latest tit-for-tat. But that does not mean the crisis is over.

There still is no strategy from Trump. Just impulses and posing. “Trump standing down is the right decision,” tweeted former Assistant Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, “But what is the plan? His speech is confusing on whether U.S. should contain Iran or seek regime change. If we’re confused Iran is too.”

The crisis has weakened America’s standing. The United States has been forced to suspend operations against ISIS. Troops in Iraq and the region have shifted to a protective posture rather than offensive operations. The Iranian people in their millions have rallied around a government they would otherwise oppose.The Iraqi parliament voted to kick American troops out of the country. What Soleimani wanted in life he may now achieve in death.

This, in fact, may be the reason Iran’s attack was so moderate. The main objective, Ayatollah Khamenei said several times in his statement on Tuesday, was to force the United States out of the Middle East. “Military operations do not suffice,” he said. “What is important in addition to retaliation is to end the U.S.’s corrupting presence in the region.” The strike may have been designed to be the “slap in the face” he claimed, without risking this ultimate objective.

There is no way of knowing if this is Iran’s last move. Khamenei may miscalculate and bend to demands for a deadlier response. Meanwhile, those in the United States who want war are not going anywhere. Standing two places over from Trump this morning was Pompeo, who goaded Trump for months to order Soleimani’s assassination. Even closer to Trump stood Vice President Mike Pence, who last week justified the strike by absurdly linking Soleimani to al-Qaida and 9/11 (without a single shred of evidence). The White House War Caucus is alive and well.

Their cascade of lies about the Iran agreement dominated Trump’s remarks. The accord, whose main flaw for Trump is that it was negotiated by Barack Obama, was a major national security achievement. It rolled back Iran’s nuclear program, froze it, put it under lock and key and bound it with the strictest inspection regime on the planet. The historic agreement stopped an Iranian bomb and an Iranian war. America unified the global powers, solved one of the world’s most difficult nuclear problems and set a standard for future agreements.

Trump pulled out of the accord, not because it was failing but because it was working. It had removed the main danger to American security presented by Iran, and, thus, the main justification for war with Iran.

Convincing Americans to launch a war they otherwise would never support requires a major threat, like the risk of nuclear attack. If this sounds like the strategy that manipulated the media and the public into supporting the disastrous invasion of Iraq, you’re paying attention. Inflate the threat, paint the government as terrorists, cherry-pick intelligence, claim imminent danger, posture as the only genuine protectors of America. It worked then, but will it work now?

It still might, but it won’t be easy. The American public is war weary. America’s allies are alienated. Opposition to a new war is growing, with demonstrations planned around the country and votes planned in Congress next week. Will Democrats finally recognize the risks, unite and act? Will the media allow true anti-war voices to come on air? Will those opposed to war get the funding they need?

There are too many variables and too many uncertainties in this crisis for anyone to relax. If we have learned anything from these six days in January it is that this winter will be long and full of terrors.

We have arrested the slide into the pit of war. We must now begin to climb out.


U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a statement about Iran flanked by U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence and military leaders in the Grand Foyer at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 8, 2020. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Analysis | Washington Politics
Elbridge Colby
Top image credit: Elbridge Colby is seen at Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearings to examine his nomination to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Dirksen Senate office building in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. (Photo by Mattie Neretin/Sipa USA).

Elbridge Colby: I won't be 'cavalier' with U.S. forces

QiOSK

In his senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Elbridge Colby, nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, stood out as one of the few people auditioning for a Pentagon job who say they may want to deploy fewer U.S. troops across the globe, not more.

“If we’re going to put American forces into action, we’re gonna have a clear goal. It’s going to have a clear exit strategy when plausible,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top image credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Ukraine aid freeze: Trump's diplomatic tightrope path to peace

Europe

Transatlanticism’s sternest critics all too often fail to reckon with the paradox that this ideology has commanded fervent devotion since the mid-20th century not because it correctly reflects the substance of U.S.-European relations or U.S. grand strategy but precisely because it exists in a permanent state of unreality.

We were told that America’s alliances have “never been stronger” even as the Ukraine war stretched them to a breaking point. Meanwhile, Europeans gladly, if not jubilantly, accepted the fact that Europe has been rendered poorer and less safe than at any time since the end of WWII as the price of “stopping Putin,” telling themselves and their American counterparts that Russia’s military or economic collapse is just around the corner if only we keep the war going for one more year, month, week, or day.

keep readingShow less
Nigerian soldier Boko Haram
Top Image Credit: A Nigerien soldier walks out of a house that residents say a Boko Haram militant had forcefully seized and occupied in Damasak March 24, 2015 (Reuters/Joe Penny)

Nigeria’s war on Boko Haram has more than a USAID problem

Africa

Insinuations by a U.S. member of Congress that American taxpayers’ money may have been used to fund terrorist groups around the world, including Boko Haram, have prompted Nigeria’s federal lawmakers to order a probe into the activities of USAID in the country’s North East.

Despite assurances by the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Richard Mills, who said in a statement that “there was no evidence that the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, was funding Boko Haram or any terrorist group in Nigeria,” Nigeria’s lawmakers appear intent on investigating.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.