It’s been exactly 23 years since I was a Marine on a ship bound for the Persian Gulf, much like the one currently shipping Marines to Iran. Back then, many of us were wondering about President Bush’s plans for Iraq, though voicing those thoughts wasn’t our role. Congress was making decisions while we faced our own challenges.
Now, as someone working in the department that handles war declarations, these lingering questions have become my responsibility. After President Trump’s address on Wednesday, Americans find themselves with even more uncertainties.
Rather than providing a concrete plan to end the conflict or reopen the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump made vague assertions about escalating the war, even hinting at potential war crimes against the Iranian populace. Financial markets reacted negatively, mirroring the anxiety felt by military families and personnel.
So, what might push President Trump to cut off Iranian oil supplies if a deal isn’t reached?
The Trump administration has shared various objectives, which seem to shift frequently — from regime change to eliminating ballistic missiles and possibly even oil theft. Trump claimed success in halting Iran’s power and nuclear ambitions, yet since the onset of this war, Iran has demonstrated a more aggressive stance. Aside from his assertions about disrupting Iran’s nuclear program last summer, deploying ground forces doesn’t seem likely to resolve the war.
If the President is truly committed to the escalation he mentioned, there are some strategies he might be contemplating.
First, he may aim to take Kharg Island, the economic hub of Iran. However, it’s important to clarify that the Strait of Hormuz isn’t located there. The thought process seems to be that by inflating the war’s economic cost, Iran might capitulate.
But this logic faces two significant hurdles. For starters, it’s puzzling that Trump would lift sanctions on Iranian oil in an effort to reduce soaring U.S. gasoline prices while simultaneously seeking to remove Iranian oil from global markets by occupying Kharg Island. Also, resilient theocratic regimes usually aren’t as susceptible to economic sanctions.
His second potential strategy involves a risky special operations mission aimed at seizing uranium from a destroyed vault in mountainous terrain. Such an operation carries a high chance of failure. Even if successful, expecting Iran to halt its enrichment efforts would be overly simplistic. Plus, this approach doesn’t facilitate reopening the strait, a task the Obama administration managed with a simple agreement back in 2015.
The third option on the table would be to invade Iran’s coastline and forcibly reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This kind of amphibious operation would necessitate deploying extraordinarily large numbers of troops, likely leading to heavy American casualties without a clear military aim besides occupation.
Ultimately, all these choices lead back to a common issue: the Iranian regime remains. We’ve replaced an old, hardline leader with a younger, more radical one. The only military strategy left seems to be weakening Iran’s capabilities, but even then, we would just give them time to regroup and rebuild.
It’s also worth noting that the Pentagon’s request for an additional $200 billion underscores the financial burden of continuing this conflict. For the average taxpayer, that translates to about $1,300, along with the emotional toll on families of soldiers lost in action. Are we prepared to shell out $1,300 every few years for this situation?
This highlights why a negotiated settlement is the only feasible solution to end this war. It’s the path that President Obama initiated with the nuclear deal, which, despite its flaws, significantly reduced the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran through inspections and monitoring. Trump’s claims of Iran’s non-compliance contradict the fact that his own government acknowledged Iran’s adherence to the deal. Ironically, many of Trump’s current proposals resemble those initially outlined in Obama’s agreement.
However, returning to diplomatic negotiations will be more challenging now. After each Iranian discussion, Trump has lashed out, leaving Iran in a stronger bargaining position, especially with its ability to block the Strait.
Staying away from this conflict will only complicate our exit strategy. As U.S. goals expand, the likelihood of success shrinks, granting Iran more influence. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where Iran seizes American soldiers, bringing to mind the hostage crisis from decades past.
Trump insists that we need another two to three weeks for the war, while also stating we’ve achieved our military goals. But that seems contradictory. Either he’s misinforming the public or lacks a solid plan for resolution.
Facing Iran isn’t something that can be solved through military means alone without substantially impacting American citizens. This reality is unfolding before our eyes.
There’s still a narrow window to negotiate a deal, assuming the self-proclaimed “President of Peace” wants to avoid being remembered for a significant strategic misstep.
He asserts he’s skilled at negotiations. Whether this will suffice remains to be seen.
