As we move into the fourth week of the conflict involving Iran, there are a couple of intriguing ideas for tackling some of the challenges. Interestingly enough, both suggestions come from outside the Belt and Road.
It’s such a quintessentially New York moment.
One unexpected recommendation comes from Richard Haas, a seasoned critic of former President Trump, who has returned to his roots.
The other concept is from Larry Kudlow, an influential figure on Wall Street and a former economic adviser to Trump.
Both proposals are quite distinctive and creative.
Last week on Substack, Haas, while critiquing the president, suggested an alternative approach to a contentious situation: addressing the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranian forces are hindering the passage of tankers transporting a significant portion of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas.
Instead of deploying marines to take control of Kharg Island, Iran’s primary export terminal, Haas argues for simply closing the strait.
For someone like Haas—who has a background in the Bush administration and once led the Council on Foreign Relations—the ideal strategy would involve a policy that’s “open to all or closed to all.”
Line of Defense
This approach would lead China and India to exert pressure on Iran to reopen the straits.
At present, apart from its own fleet, Iran mainly permits these two countries to access oil and gas via the strait, with China being the dominant customer.
Pakistan and Turkey have managed to strike a few agreements for some tankers, but many commercial vessels remain under constant threat from Iranian drone and missile assaults, with over 20 such incidents recorded in the Gulf since the war commenced.
However, Iran seems to be profiting more than ever from this conflict, with oil exports now exceeding pre-war levels, according to tanker tracking data, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Given that the bulk of Iran’s oil ends up in China, a closure of Hormuz would inevitably draw attention from the Chinese government.
This was underscored by Iran’s recent show of its capability to launch long-range missiles that could potentially hit major European capitals—something likely to concern disenchanted NATO allies.
Haas argues that Iranian tankers “will not reach their destinations until Iran backs down,” especially while it continues to threaten merchant vessels navigating through the strait.
A blockade of Iranian exports would cripple its economy and severely impact its military efforts.
To achieve this, he suggests establishing a robust defense stretch across the 200-mile Gulf of Oman, demanding ships, aircraft, and drones to patrol well beyond the strait.
Additionally, Haas mentions a need for access to aircraft carriers and local bases. Merchant vessels that choose not to comply would be rendered inoperable, and governments with these ships would be informed beforehand of the new policy.
A Deadline Has Been Set
This strategy “has the potential to unite the world, as it shows commitment to keeping international waterways accessible for nearly everyone,” according to Haas.
“It doesn’t escalate damage or destruction in war.”
This seems to offer a more palatable alternative compared to the White House’s rumored plan of employing ground troops to seize Kharg Island in a bid to exploit Iran and reopen the strait.
While global oil prices rise and inflation weighs heavily domestically, Trump recently issued a 48-hour ultimatum for Tehran to fully reopen the strait or face destruction of its power plants.
But there’s a fatigue among Trump’s supporters regarding further military engagements in the Middle East, especially after the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. As Haas notes, “Significant casualties are inevitable” in any invasion of Kharg, and this would deplete U.S. missile stockpiles further.
Moreover, it doesn’t seem sustainable to alienate NATO allies reluctant to risk escorting tankers through the strait.
An “open to all or closed to all” framework might actually encourage supposed Gulf allies to step up in efforts to manage their regional neighbors.
On another note, the Democratic Party’s continuous obstruction of the president’s initiatives presents another hurdle, with ongoing long TSA lines being a glaring example.
New Bill
As a result, they are likely to thwart the Pentagon’s request for an additional $200 billion from Congress to fund the war. This opposition will come from many of the same neoconservatives who have been advocating for aggressive postures against Iran and Russia. As Senator John Fetterman noted, the main challenge within his party currently seems to stem from what could be described as Trump Derangement Syndrome.
In practical terms, Republicans are unlikely to gather the 60 Senate votes needed for a new military funding bill.
That’s where Kudlow steps in.
In a recent appearance on Fox Business, he proposed an innovative alternative plan that would introduce Pentagon funding and the “Save America” election integrity proposal into a new reconciliation bill, requiring only 50 votes plus the vice president’s tie-breaking vote.
Since funding is a necessity, a bit of creative thinking could facilitate the inclusion of various priorities into this proposed legislation.
“The most astute individuals in Congress should collaborate to generate a solid plan that maintains military strength and upholds proper voting rights,” he argued. “Spending offsets, reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse are essential, and there’s room for entitlement reform, including perhaps tax reform focused on growth. But foremost, the priority will be national security, executing the mission in Iran, and ensuring peace through strength.”
These unconventional ideas from Kudlow and Haas may well resonate with the president—after all, creative solutions to challenging issues is something Trump excels at.
