How Trump can get out of the conflict with Iran. Analysis
US President Donald Trump has changed his attitude towards the conflict with Iran and is looking for an opportunity to get out of it. He fails not only to achieve his initial goals (which were never clearly stated), but also to solve the problem with the Strait of Hormuz, which threatens the entire world with an economic crisis. Any attempt to change the current situation, whether it is a military escalation or a transition to negotiations, is fraught with unpleasant consequences for the White House. What options the United States has left is in the analysis of Izvestia.
In what position did Trump find himself
The conflict between the United States and Israel with Iran has been going on for almost a month. By now, a consensus has already formed in the world community that Washington's actions are reaching an impasse. US President Donald Trump was launching an operation that was supposed to quickly overthrow Iran's ruling regime and pave the way for a deal to end its nuclear and missile programs. However, instead, the whole world, including the United States, has been in a state of extreme economic uncertainty for more than three weeks due to the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.
• The United States had to respond to a new problem that arose before all previous goals were achieved. The White House has taken various steps to reduce oil prices that have risen to exorbitant levels, but none of them has so far extinguished the panic in the markets. Neither the release of oil reserves, nor the call to the allies to jointly unblock the Strait of Hormuz, nor hints of the deployment of ground forces, nor direct threats to proceed to the destruction of Iran's civilian infrastructure have affected the fact that investors are increasingly preparing for a full-fledged economic crisis on a global scale.
• The situation for Trump is getting worse due to the ongoing challenges within the country. The conflict with Iran and the economic problems caused by it are not popular in the United States and lead to a drop in both the personal ratings of the president and his Republican Party. The White House had to take a pause in implementing its anti-immigration policy and agree to reduce the budget of the Department of Homeland Security, which was fighting illegal migrants. Gasoline prices in the United States are rising, and it is by them that American voters usually judge the situation of the country and whether something needs to be changed in the next election.
There is no doubt that Trump wants to end the conflict. He is a proponent of quick action in both business and politics. It is important for him to present tangible results to the public and show his achievements as soon as possible, but what can be unpredictable and distant only irritates him. Trump is not ready to focus on the same topic for a long time, especially if it starts to cause him trouble. Usually, in such cases, he tries to shift public attention to another problem, as has happened more than once, for example, in the case of the released files of financier Jeffrey Epstein. However, the military campaign against Iran is having an increasing impact on the American electorate, and it is no longer possible to simply dismiss it.
• At the same time, Trump is not ready to accept those results that can be regarded as his personal failure. This is not only a question of his political future and the course he has proclaimed, but also of his personal image. In a year when Trump will have to lead the Republican Party through the midterm congressional elections (forecasts for the Republicans' chances were disappointing even before the conflict), as well as celebrate the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence, any hint of a loss in Iran will be especially painful for the head of the White House. Therefore, he needs any reason to assert that the United States has not been defeated and has achieved some goals by launching military operations.
Scenario 1: Escalation and military solution
• One of the ways out of the conflict for Trump may be further escalation. He himself has repeatedly made it clear that he is ready to continue hostilities with Iran, and a recent statement that he is ready to take a break for five days only concerned possible attacks on energy facilities. Trump has not yet deployed ground forces to occupy the islands in the Strait of Hormuz or capture the island of Kharq, thus depriving Iran of almost all oil exports. Reports that a particular military unit is heading to the Middle East are only multiplying with each passing week.
• However, Trump still does not intend to increase military pressure for a number of reasons. Firstly, his administration is not prepared for the human losses that will inevitably increase in the event of an amphibious landing. Even the current remote nature of the war does not guarantee the American army that its soldiers will not be under a sudden attack from Iran. Secondly, the continuation of hostilities will be extremely expensive for the United States. Washington has already spent a significant portion of its precision-guided munitions, which could take years to replenish.
• The way out for the United States could be full-fledged participation in the conflict of the Persian Gulf countries. Their allies, such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, have been severely affected by Iran's actions, both in terms of physical and economic damage: their oil and gas trade is practically reduced to zero. They could be interested in forcing Iran to comply with US demands and end the conflict. However, the Middle Eastern monarchies have shown that they are not ready for any military action beyond their defense.
Scenario 2: De-escalation and negotiations
• Options that provide for certain concessions to Iran and a bloodless way out of the conflict are more realistic for Trump. However, they cannot be called simple for the current administration either. A unilateral cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of forces that were specially deployed for the operation will not lead to peace. There are still US military bases in the Middle East, which will remain the targets of Iranian attacks. Tehran insists that the United States and Israel provide it with guarantees of non-aggression. A unilateral withdrawal from the conflict will not convince the Iranian leadership that the American military will not return to launch new attacks after some time. At the same time, Israel does not at all demonstrate its readiness to stop its own attacks.
• The conflict will have to be resolved through a negotiation process, but it will be extremely difficult to conduct it in such a way that it leads to any result. Even before the conflict, both sides could hardly agree on anything and used the services of intermediaries. They had no more or less trusting attitude towards each other, due to which it was possible to build further dialogue. In addition, Oman and Qatar will no longer provide a platform for negotiations after they too have experienced the consequences of the conflict.
• The assassination of a number of Iranian leaders, including Supreme Ruler Ali Khamenei, has made negotiations extremely difficult for Iran, both morally and technically. Tehran still needs time to consolidate power and develop a unified position from which to start negotiations. Despite the election of a new supreme ruler, there is still no such figure in Iran who could fully speak on behalf of the country and make demands on the United States. Whoever assumes this role risks becoming the next target of American and Israeli missiles before the parties reach any agreement.
• In order for Iran to refuse to launch strikes, Trump will have to assume any obligations and fulfill them. The leadership of the Islamic Republic needs to show its people that it has managed to overcome the crisis, and in such a way that a larger player in the international arena is not only the first to request negotiations, but also allowed a number of concessions. At least compensation for material damage is expected from the United States — this step can already be presented as a success in the fight against Trump — but it will be impossible for him to explain to his political entourage why the military campaign ended with the payment of reparations.
• At the same time, it is critically important for Washington to tell its compatriots about the victory and the end of the conflict on the terms of the United States in order to justify the very fact of this operation. Therefore, both sides are currently in a difficult situation, and there is currently no way out that is favorable for both. The negotiating positions have yet to change.
Breaking off relations with Israel could make it easier for Trump to have a dialogue with Iran. At the moment, the White House's initiatives to end the conflict are not being met with the same understanding in Tel Aviv as the hawkish rhetoric that sounded before the first strikes. It seems to Israel that the continuation of hostilities is much more beneficial than for the United States, and even necessary in some ways. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ready to take on much greater risks associated with the continuation of hostilities, and for the Trump administration this may be an excuse to shift all responsibility for the failure of the Iranian campaign onto him.
In addition, the media has been increasingly reporting lately that the White House was misled by Israeli intelligence about the consequences of the conflict, allegedly even predicting a popular uprising in Iran in the event of a US military intervention and a slight change in political leadership. A break between the United States and Israel, even a situational and temporary one, would bring Tehran some satisfaction, which would set it up for a softer tone of negotiations. However, Trump has so far held firm to Israel's support and has not shown any hesitation on this issue.
• Whatever the outcome of the conflict, Trump will claim that he has defeated Iran, and will not pay attention to criticism from opponents, who in any case would question his proclaimed achievements. However, if the regime in Iran persists and continues to function, the United States will not seriously consider the current campaign as a success. It will take its place alongside other failed 21st century operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Trump and his supporters have themselves fiercely criticized.
When writing the material, Izvestia took into account the opinions of experts and interviewed:
- Mikhail Sinelnikov-Orishak, an American political scientist;
- political scientist Alexey Yaroshenko;
- political scientist Malek Dudakov;
- financial analyst, the author of the Crimson project, Ivan Danilin.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
