It’s bubblegum foreign policy. The goal is to enjoy the taste right away, rather than chewing something sticky for hours. US President Donald Trump’s approach to global adventurism seems to worship quick results and loathe protracted crises.
Very little is predictable in this White House, and perhaps that’s the point. But some lessons learned from January’s whirlwind, and indeed President Trump’s previous interactions with Iran, suggest that future military options in the Gulf are limited and far from great.
The buildup of naval assets in and around Iran’s coast has been slow and slow. President Trump posted that “help is on the way” and has been telegraphing the possibility of military action for about 19 days since canceling talks with Iranian officials over the brutal massacre of protesters. At the time, he did not have enough firepower to mount a large-scale attack in the area. That calculation is gradually changing. His attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June had two aircraft carrier groups in the area, but they served more as a countermeasure to Iranian retaliation than directly involved in the attack. Currently, the United States has one carrier group and multiple other assets, many of which can be easily tracked through open source monitoring.
This buildup removes the element of surprise from the Pentagon, but that may not make a huge difference. The Iranian regime has certainly been on high alert for seven months since Israel’s widespread and devastating 12-day attack. And while we have certainly been able to make some kind of recovery, our missile stockpile and command structure are definitely depleted. President Trump faces a weakened opponent, but that doesn’t make his choices any better. It may actually complicate them.
First, the lesson of January is that nothing may happen. Much of the analysis of President Trump’s brazen and illegal claims against Greenland suggested that he was pushed into a corner where he had to act. But his “iron-willed” position crumbled faster than NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte could whisper the fateful words “daddy.”
For the 47th president, the show is often the goal. He tells the truth about the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in 74 words. He backed off to Greenland with a similar thumbs-tap. This is the fourth time in a month, and the world is paying close attention to the truth about Iran, whether it’s FAFO or TACO.
If President Trump feels obligated to take military action, the road to doing so will be difficult. The unique and precise attacks fit the pattern of presidential behavior to date. When President Trump takes military action that America First MAGA bases often loathe, it is usually a combination of impressive and bold execution with a clear calm and accurate understanding of the risks that follow.
The arrest of President Maduro, the assassination of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, and the attack on Iran’s nuclear program all validated the enemy’s relative inability to defend itself or strike back. These three operations skewed America’s military advantage for a short but very powerful period, a peculiar news cycle of undeniable actions that seemed to ignore the aftermath. Because it wasn’t really a US issue. President Trump may have claimed to “run” Venezuela after President Maduro, but he clearly has no real plans to do so and has blocked any coercion against the same continuing regime in Caracas. His top adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has openly admitted that he has no idea what will happen after the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
So what would a unique night of targeted and contained U.S. military action look like? They could target what remains of the Iranian leadership. There is a possibility that he will attack the leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, perhaps Ayatollah Khamenei himself. This is a form of retaliation for the tens of thousands of protesters killed by the regime that President Trump incited to rise up and make Iran great again, but now appears less central to its demands against Iran.
However, the Revolutionary Guards quickly regrouped after their forces suffered a devastating blow during the 12-day war. And Khamenei’s future path is far from clear. It is highly unlikely that an octogenarian theocracy will be followed by a young, enlightened democrat. The regime is cutting personnel in order to survive, and its successor will need to prove his anti-American mettle in order to lock down support from the base. Khamenei’s successor will likely fare even worse. Because one man alone does not determine the entire Iranian system.
Another option would be to track down the remains of Iran’s nuclear program, which would fit with US long-term policy goals. But another strike would risk contradicting President Trump’s previous assessment of success against those facilities in June. Why bomb the same thing twice unless you fail the first time?
Would a series of widespread attacks against military and security infrastructure be more effective? Probably. However, the longer and more extensive the bombing campaign, the less accurate it can become. Tens of millions of Iranians depend on the regime for their livelihoods, and tens of thousands of fathers and sons serve in the targeted security forces. Orphans and widows often do not accept the broader geopolitical needs of their immediate grief. The United States risks enraging a significant portion of the Iranian population it hopes to support and entrenching the regime it seeks to overthrow.
The longer the bombing campaign continues, the more its limitations become exposed. Iran’s leaders know this is an existential threat to their country’s survival and their theocracy, and will continue to prioritize it above all else. Surrender from the smoldering ruins of Tehran’s government buildings remains unlikely. This brutal and cruel clan, with a dwindling list of allies, has its back against the wall.
It is also the perennial fallacy of armchair generals to believe that they can bomb a regime out of power. The White House seemed to accept this fact quite easily when it encouraged Vice President Delcy Rodriguez to take over immediately after Maduro’s capture.
Currently, President Trump lacks theater military equipment that can withstand weeks of heavy artillery bombardment. He may also lack the political will to bring about real change by sending in ground troops. It was a massive, multi-year undertaking that took months to prepare for Iran’s ill-fated invasion of neighboring Iraq in 2003.
Long-term, sustained options are unfavorable, and President Trump faces the usual choice between changing the subject or a military flashbang moment. He may choose the latter, correctly sensing that Iran is weakening. But the good fortune he has enjoyed in his last three lightning strikes (two against Iran and one against Venezuela) risks giving way to hubris and miscalculation. The killing of several American soldiers by an Iranian missile or drone could drag President Trump into a months-long war of retaliation and create new foreign-related headaches for the self-styled peace president’s MAGA base.
Therefore, your options other than haste are limited. Should I remove the lamp or change the subject? There are very few off-ramps here because the Iranian regime is so recalcitrant. But President Trump’s foreign policy is in the eye of the beholder. His Greenland “off-ramp” has yet to result in any real, concrete changes in the US position. But it succeeded in pushing the crisis out of the headlines, giving Iran some space.
These global crises seem to be a reminder that Trump is a pivotal figure in everything. We watch to see if the thumbs go up or down, and that’s often what we’re looking for.
