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.


google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war
Shutterstock/Ben Von Klemperer

Senior US official resigns in protest of Iran war

QiOSK

The intra-GOP debate over the Iran war has now reached inside the Trump administration, triggering the first senior-level resignation over the conflict.

Joe Kent, a former U.S. Army officer, resigned Tuesday from his position as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), saying in a letter that he could no longer “in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran.” Kent focused his blame on “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” for leading President Donald Trump down this dangerous path and deceiving him into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat and that a war could be won quickly and easily.

keep readingShow less
Iran Us airstrikes
Top photo credit: An Iranian couple carries a national flag as they walk past a police facility that is destroyed in an attack during a rally commemorating International Quds Day, also known as Jerusalem Day, in Tehran, Iran, on March 13, 2026, amid the U.S.-Israeli military campaign. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)
Trump's capture of Maduro and the rise of 'global mafia politics'

Trump's ill-fated attempt to copy Israel's 'mowing the grass' strategy

Global Crises

Two weeks into the Iran War, the Trump Administration remains mired in a conflict without a clear casus belli and without an articulated end state. President Donald Trump’s latest extra-constitutional use of military force is but the latest in an alarming trend: the Trump administration believes it has solved the “forever war” trap by attempting to divorce war from discrete political objectives.

Trump and his allies appear to have decided that, by blowing things up without a clear political end state in mind, they can advance U.S. geopolitical interests while avoiding a quagmire. In practice, this is little more than a global version of Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy, in which periodic military campaigns substitute for political strategy. Now, this notion of war without politics is dragging the U.S. even deeper into the messy business of Middle Eastern affairs.

keep readingShow less
‘Water War’ rages as India-Pakistan tensions reach boiling point
Top image credit: A view of Ranjit Sagar Dam (Thein Dam), which is near the proposed site of the Shahpur Kandi Dam. (Shutterstock/mrinalpal)

A view of Ranjit Sagar Dam (Thein Dam), which is near the proposed site of the Shahpur Kandi Dam. (Shutterstock/mrinalpal)

‘Water War’ rages as India-Pakistan tensions reach boiling point

Global Crises

Last week, water became a focal point in the Iran war, as airstrikes hit desalination plants in Iran and Bahrain. Further east, a slower motion water war was playing out — one that is heightening tensions between two nuclear armed powers.

The Shahpur Kandi Dam project was first conceptualized in the late 1970s. In 1982, former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi laid its foundation stone and set a 1988 deadline for the project. But inter-state conflicts between Punjab, Jammu, and Kashmir stalled construction for decades.

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.