There Is No U.S. Plan on Iran
Maybe, just maybe, the Trump Administration does not know what it is doing in Iran.
Over the weekend the hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World expressed just a smidgen of skepticism that there was a coherent strategy behind the Trump administration’s decision to join Israel in bombing Iran. As the scope of the conflict widens, however, it is always tempting to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. After all, deciding to launch an aerial assault on Iran is a high-stakes gamble. One would like to believe that any administration, in deciding to go to war, would think long and hard about the downside risks and prepare for such contingencies.
The more we learn about Trump’s decision-making process to bomb Iran, however, the clearer it becomes that there is no real strategy or end goal.
Want some evidence? Consider the talking points that the Trump White House provided to congressional Republicans on Monday. Here are the highlights:
The objectives are clear:
1. Destroy their missiles, and raze their missile industry to the ground.
2. Annihilate their Navy.
3. Ensure the regime’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs or roadside bombs, which have gravely wounded and killed thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans.
4. Ensure that Iran can NEVER obtain a nuclear weapon. While Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated Iran’s three major nuclear sites, the regime was committed to enriching and rebuilding their nuclear program, and they REFUSED to make a deal, despite months of extensive talks and good faith efforts by President Trump’s top negotiators.
It is noteworthy that “regime change” is not listed in those objectives despite Trump talking about regime change constantly over the last 72 hours.1
But it is also noteworthy that these are pretty maximalist goals! Destroying all of Iran’s missile production, naval assets, terrorist proxies, and its ability to EVER obtain a nuclear weapon is a tall order. It almost begs a “nuke the sight from orbit” kind of responses.
Beyond that, the talking points are not terribly persuasive about, you know, why attack Iran and why attack right now. On why the United States is attacking Iran, one bullet point response is, “Iran poses an imminent threat to our troops and bases in the Middle East. This is a terrorist regime that chants ‘Death to America.’” That causal logic is pretty weak and could be used to justify attacking pretty much every country with high levels of anti-Americanism.
The media coverage suggests that the decision to attack was more about Israel than the United States. The New York Times reporting team makes that clear in their tick-tock:
