Posts
Conversation
Conflict termination is a much bigger problem than the commentary on the Iran War suggests. There is a glib assumption that the Trump Administration can shift the goalposts on its war aims, Trump himself can apply his PT Barnum genius, and the US can walk away. Not so. As I have said many times, a world in which the US walks away while Iran still has the Strait shut and is still slinging missiles at US allies is a world indistinguishable from one in which the US has suffered a major strategic defeat. It is a world in which US allies in the region would have to ask Tehran for terms, and other major powers would have to ask nicely to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This is to say, the US would first have to negotiate a deal in which the US backs off and Iran relents, too. Two problems with that. First, the perfidious manner in which Israel and the US kickstarted the Twelve Day War and this war, respectively, using negotiations as a cover for and aid to the opening decapitation strike, will make Iran leery of proposals to negotiate or promises made during negotiations. Secondly, Iran would undoubtedly seek reassurance that the US and Israel will not return for another bite of the cherry in six months or two years. And what guarantees can the US credibly offer? (Credible is the important word here: see Jerry Seinfeld's point regarding car rental reservations: "You know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to keep the reservation.") I am struggling to think of any, but perhaps those with more historical knowledge might suggest something. It therefore seems likely that Iran would seek concrete steps rather than promises. These might involve a US withdrawal from the region, which would make an air war far more difficult to prosecute. Yet this would be political cyanide in Washington and Israel. This points to Iran having to continue the war to inflict really very serious economic pain indeed on the global economy in order to get to a position where its demands might be palatable. It also points to the US continuing the war to try its best to avoid a strategic defeat that would undoubtedly sink the Trump presidency (and all associated with it, including his party) and represent a massive strategic turnaround and loss of prestige for the US. In fact, it seems to me that Trump would likely increase his military risk appetite before he went down the road of giving Tehran what it wants. The only way to avoid this would be for the USAF to finally suppress Iran's capacity to fire missiles and drones and keep the Strait closed. Then, as @policytensor says, it could be turned into a 'one-sided war of punishment', even if regime change could not be obtained. But we do not seem close to that yet. The above attempts to give you the train of thought that leads me to believe that (1) the conflict termination problem is a much thornier problem than widely considered, (2) that the balance of probabilities therefore suggest a continuance for some time yet, (3) that this in turn means more economic and financial pain, and (4) oil, other commodities, and captial markets are still underpricing the risk.
[I cut out the first half of Policy Tensor's post.]It’s not like the Iranians have no plan to win the war. They are going to make Trump pay such a high price that future presidents, himself included, will think twice about considering the idea ever again. They know what they need to do to impose intolerable costs on Trump and the international community. They just need to keep Hormuz closed and sustain their attacks for long enough to politically cripple Trump. According to my calculations, Iran will be able to sustain fire and keep Hormuz closed for many months, if indeed not years. One day of oil above $100 and he resorted to panicked market diplomacy. This leads me to the thesis that while he may have high risk appetite, he does not have high pain tolerance. But we are playing Mercy here. The problem of Iranian security has been triggered by the joint Israeli-American proposal for a Middle East ruled by Israel. Iran’s security problem in the context of war termination, is to deter a future US-Israeli attack. Iran is all ears for solutions to this problem. But there is no one in the international system who has stepped up to solve this problem. Unless this problem is effectively addressed by the international system, I don’t see how Iran can be prevented from crashing the world economy.
[I cut out the first half of Policy Tensor's post.]It’s not like the Iranians have no plan to win the war. They are going to make Trump pay such a high price that future presidents, himself included, will think twice about considering the idea ever again. They know what they need to do to impose intolerable costs on Trump and the international community. They just need to keep Hormuz closed and sustain their attacks for long enough to politically cripple Trump. According to my calculations, Iran will be able to sustain fire and keep Hormuz closed for many months, if indeed not years. One day of oil above $100 and he resorted to panicked market diplomacy. This leads me to the thesis that while he may have high risk appetite, he does not have high pain tolerance. But we are playing Mercy here. The problem of Iranian security has been triggered by the joint Israeli-American proposal for a Middle East ruled by Israel. Iran’s security problem in the context of war termination, is to deter a future US-Israeli attack. Iran is all ears for solutions to this problem. But there is no one in the international system who has stepped up to solve this problem. Unless this problem is effectively addressed by the international system, I don’t see how Iran can be prevented from crashing the world economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment