Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1605661105-scaled

Trump Drives Past an Off-Ramp

Trump doesn't seem to realize that he himself built the escalation ladder by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

President Trump, in his speech this morning, missed a de-escalation opportunity that Iran had given him. A confrontation that benefits neither the United States nor Iran (not to mention other affected parties, such as Iraq) is momentarily pausing, but the confrontation and its accompanying dangers will continue.

The Iranian regime sent a carefully calibrated message with its missile strikes on two military bases in Iraq yesterday and with its subsequent messaging. The strikes were a prompt, highly visible, and openly proclaimed retaliation for the killing by a U.S. drone of senior Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani. They responded to the internal Iranian demand for revenge and to the external need to “establish deterrence,” to use that overused Western term. Related to the latter point, the Iranians demonstrated again — as they did in striking Saudi oil facilities last year — the ability to attack targets in neighboring countries with high precision.

They used that precision in this instance to hit targets that are associated with the United States, that they could rhetorically link to the assassination of Soleimani, but that would not indiscriminately cause American casualties — and, as it appears, did not cause any American casualties at all. In other words, the Iranians did not force Trump into a situation in which he would feel obliged to strike militarily at Iran again. With the Iranian leadership’s follow-up statements about having “concluded” the response to the Soleimani assassination while threatening to respond forcefully to any more U.S. escalation, Tehran’s message to the Trump administration was clear: we are prepared to climb down the escalation ladder, but we are also prepared to hit back hard if you keep climbing up the ladder. To use a different metaphor, Tehran offered Trump an off-ramp from the current dangerous confrontation.

The good news in Trump’s response is that he evidently has taken the no-casualty result of the Iranian missile strikes in Iraq as reason not to order, at least for now, yet another military attack on Iranian interests. But there was no hint in his speech on Wednesday of recognition that it was his own launching of unrestricted economic warfare against Iran that set up the ladder in the first place. He gave no indication of understanding that Iran is not going to sit still indefinitely while that warfare continues unabated. Rather than talking de-escalation, Trump is talking about imposing still more sanctions (if there is anything else left to sanction in Iran).

The Iranians have said that if they can’t export their oil (and current U.S. policy is to do everything possible to reduce those exports to zero), then other oil producers should have difficulty exporting their product as well. Sending that message was largely what the attacks on the Saudi facilities at Khurais and Abqaiq were about. With the U.S. administration persisting on its present course, expect more of the same.

Trump’s few conciliatory words near the end of his statement were insufficient to offset the tone and substance of everything else in the speech. Those few words included the truthful observation that ISIS is a foe of Iran (however much this observation jars with much else that Trump said about Soleimani as supposedly the world’s chief terrorist) and that there is potential for the United States and Iran to cooperate in fighting ISIS, as they tacitly have done in the past in Iraq.

But the speech up to that point was all-too-familiar Trumpian rhetoric, including the usual outright falsehoods, such as that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon (it isn’t, although continued assaults from the United States may lead it to change its mind) and that the multilateral agreement that restricts Iran’s nuclear program will expire soon (it won’t; the agreement itself, the prohibition on nuclear weapons, and the intrusive international inspection arrangements are permanent). There were the hoary and fallacious assertions about the financial side of the Iran nuclear agreement, including even the outrageous charge that money the previous U.S. administration had provided Iran “paid for” the missiles fired at the Iraqi bases.

Given one of the most important opportunities of his presidency to exercise statesmanship, Trump turned the occasion mostly into the functional equivalent of a campaign rally. Because of that, a dangerous and fruitless standoff will persist.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela
Top image credit: LightField Studios via shutterstock.com

Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela

Military Industrial Complex

As the U.S. threatens to take “oil, land and other assets” from Venezuela, staffers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank funded in part by defense contractors and oil companies, are eager to help make the public case for regime change and investment. “The U.S. should go big” in Venezuela, write CSIS experts Ryan Berg and Kimberly Breier.

Both America’s Quarterly, which published the essay, and the authors’ employer happen to be funded by the likes of Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, a fact that is not disclosed in the article.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)

Ukraine's own pragmatism demands 'armed un-alignment'

Europe

Eleven months after returning to the White House, the Trump administration believes it has finally found a way to resolve the four-year old war in Ukraine. Its formula is seemingly simple: land for security guarantees.

Under the current plan—or what is publicly known about it—Ukraine would cede the 20 percent of Donetsk that it currently controls to Russia in return for a package of security guarantees including an “Article 5-style” commitment from the United States, a European “reassurance force” inside post-war Ukraine, and peacetime Ukrainian military of 800,000 personnel.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

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.