Appeasement, Donnie Style

Posted: June 19, 2026 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal workers are now on twelve hour shifts to clean up the algae bloom in Trump’s “pristine” reflection pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial. There probably could be no better metaphor for his administration. 14 million dollars on a no-bid contract to do, according to Trump, what no other president in history has done. To help kill the algae, the workers reportedly are also putting a 12 percent solution of hydrogen peroxide into the water where the bottom is painted “American flag blue”. Hydrogen peroxide in solutions over 10 percent acts as a paint remover. (photo-Facebook)

And it’s 1,2,3 what’re we fightin’ for? Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn, next stop is ol’ Iran. And it’s 5,6,7 open up the pearly gates! Well, there ain’t no time to wonder why, Whoopee we’re all gonna die!

With apologies to Country Joe and the Fish for altering their 1969 “I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin-To-Die-Rag” sometimes known as the “Vietnam Song” written by Country Joe McDonald.

What a week it has been. It is hard to keep track of it all, but foremost on my mind is the debacle that took place this week as we acceded to all of Iran’s demands to end the war of choice started by Trump. As I wrote earlier this week, the U.S. is the clear loser, no matter what kind of happy face Trump and his flunkies try to paint on it. To me, it is not even obvious that the terms of the agreement will last very long. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that Trump ceremonially signed with his trademark sharpie in the palace at Versailles France (oh, the historical irony) technically is not a treaty. It is supposed to be the framework for a more permanent peace agreement to be hammered out over the next sixty days. However, Trump and his administration are talking about it as if everything is already complete. If this is the end of it, then Iran got everything it wanted and the U.S. got nothing other than vague promises.

Indeed, there may be nothing more. In what can only be described as a fluid situation (government speak for nobody knows exactly what is going on), the follow on talks were postponed by Iran. They claim violations of the MOU are happening, especially on the part of Israel which was not a formal participant in the agreement. According to the MOU, the sixty day window started when the MOU was signed. All of this is to say, it reinforces my feeling that there may not be much in the way of formal negotiations to solidify the terms of the MOU.

There are fourteen points in the MOU which can be found here. In every detail, it is a humiliating end to a war that achieved nothing. While I am glad to see the fighting stop and an argument can be made that a bad deal is better than no deal, it is a clear sign of Trump’s ineptitude and preference to only look out for himself. The MOU achieves none of the alleged goals that were presented as the reason to go to war. The great victory the Trump administration is celebrating only requires Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, which was open to free navigation before the war began. As spelled out in the MOU, Iran will allow “the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa.” (Emphasis added.) After 60 days they can consult with Oman to define the future administration of the strait which will surely include some form of fees to allow safe passage. Iran only reiterated its long standing position that they promise not to develop a nuclear weapon, a position they have espoused for decades. That is it. There are no provisions for inspections or otherwise monitoring Iran’s nuclear stockpile. Meanwhile, the U.S. lifts all of its sanctions and will work to lift international sanctions immediately which means Iran can get its oil to market at market prices where before, when they had to smuggle it out, they sold the oil at a discount. At current prices, that means Iran will earn about 105 billion dollars a year. Additionally, the U.S. will unfreeze Iranian assets and work to institute a 300 billion dollar “invest fund” for Iran to rebuild. None of those things will be monitored under this agreement. The MOU says nothing about Iran’s missile and drone programs or stopping its support for terrorists and proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Guess where those billions will go.

In essence, the MOU is a multi-billion dollar payment to get Iran to re-open the strait for 60 days. Coupled with vague promises to negotiate a more permanent deal to control Iranian nuclear stockpiles. We are worse off than we were before the war. Not to mention that we threw Israel under the bus by including Lebanon in the agreement without consulting Israel.

Thirteen U.S. service members, 165 young Iranian school girls and their teachers, thousands of civilians throughout the Middle East, all dead. Roughly 400 U.S. service members wounded. Iranian citizens yearning to throw out their oppressors were abandoned. (Trump told them in January that “Help is on its way!”) Billions and billions of dollars spent. Everything wasted for no discernible purpose.

From a purely historical viewpoint, the U.S. again had to relearn a lesson that has been tested many times since World War II. Wars cannot be won by air power alone, no matter how grand, courageous or incredible our air forces and personnel may be. Ground troops have to be used at some point or the enemy can just wait out the onslaught. The Battle of Britain in 1940 showed that the first time around and we have relearned the lesson over and over since then. If your war aims are “unconditional surrender” — which Trump demanded at the start of the war — then ground troops are needed. If a nation does not want to do that — and thank goodness we did not put troops into Iran — then you may have tactical or operational success but not strategic success. It also says something about the will of those involved in the fighting. A nation may have tremendous military capabilities, but if there is not the will to fight at any cost, success is going to be relative.

Trump did tell the truth in one way. During a press conference at the G-7 conference in Evian, France this week he said, “I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened. But all I know is, every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship.” Trump went on to say that he stopped the fighting, “rather than possibly going into a depression, rather than having your favorite president be Herbert Hoover, he was always the one I didn’t want to be.” In other words, he admitted that his economy was not “golden” and that things could get even worse if the war continued. Specifically, the economic impact of the war was intolerable and that the world was facing a severe shortage of oil. At the G-7 conference on June 17, he said if he hadn’t agreed to the MOU, the U.S. “would run out of [oil] reserves in about four weeks.”

Hold on a second. About those ballistic missiles. Did Trump let Iran keep their missile programs? The ones that Secretary of Defense Hegseth said that the goal of the war was to “destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production.” Yes. Apparently the Iranians can keep their ballistic missiles and programs because, otherwise, it wouldn’t be fair. But I will let Trump explain it. “I mean, they have to have some because other people have some. You’ve got to have some,” Trump went on: “‘Sir, you shouldn’t let them have any missiles.’ I said, ‘Well, what am I going to do? I’m going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can’t have them?’ ‘Yes, sir.’ It can’t — doesn’t work that way,” Trump said. 

So there you go.

The war did not weaken the Iranian regime or strengthen the U.S. Gulf states will now have to deal with a revitalized Iran that keeps its war making capability and is now richer, stronger and tougher with the knowledge that it can survive an American attack.

On a brighter note, the Obama Center officially opened yesterday. All living presidents and their wives — except for the current one — attended the joyous celebration surrounding the opening. It reminded me of what America can be when we stick to our values and traditions.

And Happy Juneteenth!

Desperation Trumps Reality

Posted: June 15, 2026 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Vessels at anchor in the Strait of Hormuz. (Reuters)

Yesterday to celebrate his birthday, Trump declared that his war with Iran is over and that peace prevails. While details of an agreement are unclear — all of the parties involved have stated different conditions and no transcript yet exists — it appears that we have a “concept of a plan” in place that the Trump administration is calling a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It is not finalized as the MOU will not be signed until Friday. Everything stays in place at least until then. As the U.S. military command in charge — Central Command or CENTCOM — stated today, the U.S. naval blockade remains in place until the MOU is officially signed. This, despite Trump posting that “I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz.” Of course, the Iranians might have a say in its reopening.

For insiders, look at insurance rates for ships in the Persian Gulf transiting the strait as an indicator of how things are proceeding. Businesses and insurance underwriters are not going to send their ships through without the knowledge that it is safe. Extravagant insurance rates means the strait is not safe. The more the rates approach pre-war costs — it will be a long time before they are the same — the more traffic will transit the strait.

As with most things involving Trump, he took a bad situation, put some Home Depot gold gilding on it, and sold it as a huge success. We have a long way to go before the situation is resolved. Supposedly, the MOU signed next Friday will lead to a renewed ceasefire that will open a sixty day window of negotiations. It is always a promising start when the shooting stops and people are not dying or getting maimed, but peace is hardly ensured. I suspect that most of the process involves Trump getting fed up with the war and just walking away while trying to put a happy face of victory on the debacle.

Clearly Trump failed to achieve any of the goals he set at the start of the war. Indeed, we are worse off now than we were at the start of the war. There is new leadership in charge in Iran that is more hardline than the one we killed off. Now the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) appears to be calling the shots and they are more confident in their ability to survive the U.S. military’s best efforts. Trump promised the people of Iran that he would help them throw off their oppressive government. In fact, they are under a more repressive regime and have suffered thousands of civilian casualties in the process. The elimination of Iranian missile and drone production is not mentioned in the MOU. Trump finally settled on dismantling the Iranian nuclear program as the basis of the war but the program remains. The Strait of Hormuz was open to free navigation and now it is not. Notice that Trump declared the “toll free” opening of the strait. Look for Iran to impose a tax, or a processing fee, or an administration fee or an environmental fee or some other fig leaf otherwise known as a toll. Even if they do not charge anything, Iran now knows that they can close the strait or restrict traffic or prohibit ships from designated countries from using it or control it in any way that they care to do so, with significant impact on the world economy. The U.S. did not reopen the strait and the Iranians are betting that the U.S. will not come back to do it in the future. At least not in the next two and a half years.

The mere fact that the administration is talking in vague generalities is a clue to how little has been achieved. Rather, it seems Trump was desperate to get out from under the quagmire he created in the Persian Gulf. I have seen nothing addressing Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism. It appears that sanctions against Iran will be lifted as part of the deal and that billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets will be released. That unfortunate development is one that Trump is trying desperately to gloss over. He accused President Obama of giving the Iranians “pallets” of money under the JCPOA. It is expected that Trump’s deal will give the Iranians billions more. It is widely reported that Trump will free up twenty billion dollars in Iranian funds, dwarfing the roughly 400 million in frozen assets released under Obama in 2015 (with accrued interest since 1979 the total was about 1.5 billion dollars). Probably, three billion dollars has already been released through the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as Trump is desperate to keep his finger prints off of the cash. There is also talk of the U.S. paying reparations to Iran to help rebuild the infrastructure destroyed during the war. Notably, nowhere to date has there been any talk of inspectors monitoring or restricting the Iranian nuclear program. Without inspections, any paper agreement is meaningless.

Looking at the big picture, Iran achieved its strategic goals and the U.S. achieved none. Yes, Iran is battered and our military is significantly more powerful than Iran is, but as I have written many times in this space, that is not all there is to warfare. Strategy matters. Clear objectives matter. Matching ends, ways and means matters. Despite Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s belief that blowing stuff up is fun and is all that matters, there is more to warfare than bombs. There is a reason that military strategists, including in senior U.S. war colleges, still study On War by Carl von Clausewitz. It is not just a cliche to repeat his fundamental precept that “war is the continuation of policy [politics] by other means.” Nations do not, or at least should not, go to war for the fun of it. The military is one tool to support diplomacy to achieve specific objectives. I dare say that Trump and Hegseth and the rest of Trump’s civilian advisors are too vain to believe that they have anything to learn from those that are professionals in the art of war. This is the result.

Iran’s power, finances and stature on the world stage are significantly enhanced. The U.S. is significantly diminished.

We will have to wait and see what actually takes place on Friday and what is accomplished during the negotiations. The wild card is Israel. Iran insists that Hezbollah in Lebanon is part of the agreement and that Iran will not abide by any agreement if Lebanon is not part of the settlement. Israel insists that their actions in Lebanon are distinct from those in Iran. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is adamantly opposed to any agreement with Iran before their nuclear program is eliminated. Speculation is that he launched an attack into Lebanon just before the MOU was announced for one of two purposes. The benign explanation is that he wanted to emphasize that Israeli actions in Lebanon are not part of the agreement. The less kind explanation is that the attacks were an attempt to get Iran to withdraw from the agreement with the U.S. Netanyahu is in a political bind. He needs to exert his independence and maintain his sovereign responsibilities but Trump is publicly acting like he controls Netanyahu. Time will tell.)

Iran is a bad actor. They are the leading sponsors of terrorism around the world. The leaders of Iran are fanatics and there is every incentive to hold them in check and accountable. Reckless military actions were not the way to reel them in. I think that the waste of lives and treasure will haunt us well into the future. The Trump administration will try and paint a picture of total victory. It is not. We will soon see if this group of third rate actors in the administration have any ability to learn from their mistakes as there is already talk of going into Cuba. Maybe the spineless members of Congress that let Trump do whatever he wants will finally step up. I am not holding my breath waiting for them to get a backbone.

Mad King Donnie Disrupts The World

Posted: April 9, 2026 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Tuesday, Trump claimed that in accordance with an announced cease-fire with Iran that the Strait of Hormuz is open. On Thursday, officials from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) stated that “the Strait of Hormuz is not open. Access is being restricted, conditioned and controlled” by Iran. The map shows how Iran is rerouting shipping so that it can pass within the firing range of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards so that they can shake down the shippers for cash. From CNBC (AFP/Getty Images)

On one level, all of us should be thankful that Trump pulled his TACO routine (Trump Always Chickens Out) after posting on social media Tuesday morning, directed at Iran and its population of 93 million men, women and children that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” That is what scholars, pundits and most of the public call genocide. From the President of the United States. Speaking to the world in our name. The reaction from his fellow Republicans? Nothing. No accountability. No responsibility. No consequences. This is not okay. This is beyond shameful and is sufficient cause for getting rid of the whole lot of them. Our Constitution is soiled and our system of government is broken. Clearly the president is deranged. It is no longer a slogan or an exaggeration or any other mitigating definition. He is just plain crazy and he controls nuclear weapons. Two things are clear from his statement. First and foremost he has no moral compass, code of ethics or empathy for any human besides himself. Second, he clearly thinks he can do whatever he wants without restraint from anybody or any organization. If he wants it, he will order it, and expect it to be carried out. This should scare all of us right to our core. Thank goodness he chickened out. But let’s look deeper.

One hour before his stated deadline for Iran to end the war and open the Strait of Hormuz, Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif offered up a fig leaf to provide an exit ramp from doomsday. Both Trump and Iran accepted a two week ceasefire to allow diplomatic efforts to continue towards a more lasting settlement. In doing so, Trump said that the Iranian ten point plan for a negotiated settlement was a “workable basis on which to negotiate.” Iran took that literally, always dangerous when dealing with Trump. It appears that Trump probably did not know what was in the Iranian proposal. Here are the points in the plan:

  1. Cessation of the war on Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen.
  2. Cessation of the war in Iran with no time limit.
  3. Ending all conflicts in the region.
  4. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
  5. Establishing a protocol and conditions to ensure freedom and security of navigation in the Strait.
  6. Full payment of war reparations to Iran.
  7. Lifting sanctions on Iran.
  8. Release of the Iranian frozen assets held by the United States.
  9. Iran commits to not seeking possession of any nuclear weapons.
  10. Immediate ceasefire on all fronts upon the ceasefire announcement.

Looks a lot like Iran got nearly everything that they wanted. After scathing criticism stating that fact, Trump retreated. Now the administration is claiming that this is not the plan, instead there is a “secret” plan that they cannot reveal. If you believe that, you probably have a degree from Trump University.

For forty-seven years Iran has been the leading exporter of terrorism. There are no tears shed for the regime, its military or any of the other suppressors of the Iranian people. Iranians — Persians — have a long and storied history and culture. We will all rejoice when they rejoin the nations of the world as a stable, productive and welcomed member of society. This assault did not achieve that but it did make life worse for the average citizen of the country.

Israel, of course, is not honoring the ceasefire, whatever form it may be in. They continue to bomb Lebanon claiming that that war is different than the one on Iran. Iran refuses to fully open the the Strait until the Israelis stop their bombing. In short, it is a very confusing situation as I write. We do know, that for now, the United States has ceased attacking targets in Iran. That is about the only thing that is for sure. Oh, and Trump and his minions are claiming a “historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield. A capital V military victory” as the former Fox News weekend host and current Secretary of Defense describes it.

The U.S. military did what they were asked to do. They significantly degraded the Iranian military in an overwhelming tactical win. But, strategically? Iran won big time. There is a famous conversation between adversaries in Viet Nam some years after the war. Harry Summers, an American colonel allegedly told a North Vietnamese counterpart, “You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield,” to which the Vietnamese colonel replied, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.” History is replete with examples of similar tactical losses leading to strategic victory. One can argue our most recent example was the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

Here is some of what Trump expected from Iran for our war of choice to cease and the assault on Iran to end. First, he called on the Iranian people to rise up and take control of their government. Then he simplified that to “regime change.” Then he called for “the complete and unconditional surrender” of the nation. Then it was to destroy Iranian stockpiles of enriched uranium. Then it was to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Then it was to keep their proxies (Hezbollah and the Houthis) from participating in the war. Then I lost track, but they ended with opening the Strait of Hormuz — which I will gently remind everyone was open to free navigation prior to the war. None of these objectives were achieved. In fact, in some ways, Iran is in better shape now. They have an even more entrenched and radical regime in control of the country. Sanctions have been lifted so Iran is making lots of money with oil prices so high. Iran is charging tolls for the use of the Strait of Hormuz — more money to the regime to rearm and rebuild, especially as Russia has openly supported Iran and reports indicate that China has been helping them as well.

(Distracting Note: Were I conspiracy theorist, I might opine that the entire reason for Operation Epic Fury was to help Vladimir Putin and Russia. Sanctions against Russia are lifted, allowing for them to purchase more weapons for use against Ukraine. Weapons and ammunition destined for Ukraine was diverted to the U.S. attack on Iran. Russia supplied targeting information on U.S. forces to Iran. Trump has all but broken NATO. He viciously denigrates our closest allies and even said this week that “I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.”)

The war claimed thirteen American lives, with close to four hundred wounded. The cost — to date — is roughly 40 billion dollars. We have depleted stocks of weapons and ammunition that will take years to replace, especially high cost missiles and aircraft. (We know the U.S. has lost four F-15E [fighters], 1 A-10 [ground attack], 1 E-3 [AWACS], 2 KC-135 [tankers], 2 C-130 [special operations configured transports], 17 MQ-9 [sophisticated drones], 1 MH-6 [specialized little helicopter] and there are rumors of additional helicopters lost.) Thousands of civilians killed in Iran, Lebanon, Israel and around the Persian Gulf. Oil prices soaring impacting the world’s economy. And more. For what?

Are we better off than we were six weeks ago? Strategically, Iran is. We look weak, chaotic, unhinged and untrustworthy as the world wonders where Trump will next declare “the end of civilization” is at hand. Trump is attempting to end this war in the same manner he ends everything. Create a crisis, claim to be fixing it, and then walk away when it gets too hard and pronounce that its not his problem, someone else will have to clean it up.

This is not the end of our nightmare. It is only the beginning.

Iran

Posted: January 6, 2020 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

While you were enjoying the holidays with friends and family, you may have missed that the United States conducted a drone strike killing five people including Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.  The strike took place at the Baghdad Airport as the general was reportedly on his way to a meeting with Iraqi officials.  It was done without the knowledge of the Iraqis.

Killing General Soleimani, and the U.S. and world reaction in the aftermath, shows a real Policy-Strategy mismatch in the stated goals of the Trump Administration.

Mr. Donald J. Trump campaigned on a policy, and continues to reiterate it on the 2020 campaign trail, of pulling our troops out of the Middle East and to not pursue what he calls “endless wars.” His administration’s stated policy for the future is to focus on realigning our military forces and deployments to get away from the War on Terror and to instead focus on near competitors such as China and Russia. This action in Iraq furthers none of these goals.

Killing General Soleimani was in itself not a bad thing.  On one important level, the world is much better off without him.  He was, in the vernacular, a “bad guy.”  No tears are shed in  this space for his demise.  The question is whether it was wise or not.  The problem is that I suspect the Trump Administration had no long-term plan.  No next steps.  No branches and sequels that anticipated the understanding of, or planning for, probable Iranian retaliation.  When taking such an action, proper planning requires thinking through the consequences and preparing for the inevitable reaction.  I don’t see that that was done.  An old military saying is that no plan survives contact with the enemy.  They get a vote on what happens next.  It is imperative that before taking such a drastic action that planners think through the probable consequences and prepare for them.

They should know that the Iranians will retaliate.  Period.  They must in order to keep their position as a power broker in the region.  Most likely they will do so in an asymmetrical way.  Cyber attacks.  Terrorist attacks. Surrogates attacking US interests in third countries. Interfering with shipping in the Persian Gulf through rocket or mine attacks.  Probably in a way that allows for plausible deniability that makes it more difficult for the U.S. to respond.  The Iranians know that they cannot go toe to toe with the US military, but they also know that they can do a lot of damage — especially psychologically and economically.  And Americans are likely to die.

There is a reason that over the last thirty years we attacked Iraq rather than Iran.  Iran has always been a bad actor — by far much worse than Iraq under Saddam Hussein.  Iran is the main source of terrorism in the Middle East and has been since their revolution in the late 1970’s as they try to export that revolution.  Not unlike the Soviet Union in their heyday.  We attacked Iraq twice because they were bad actors, but more importantly, it was doable.  Iran is a completely different ball game.  Despite stereotypes, Iran is a modern, technologically savvy nation with a large and capable military.  Not in the US league, but good, and probably the best of those in the region.

When analyzing the attack, the evidence given by the Administration for carrying out the killing does not make sense.  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argues that it was in response to intelligence that indicated an “imminent threat” to U.S. forces.  This is important if one is considering the legal reasons for the killing.  The President continually states that it is retribution for past actions by Iran, directed by General Soleimani.  Not a legal reason for the undertaking under either U.S. or international law.

I don’t want to get hung up on the legality of the attack as in some ways, it is a distraction.  It is important in another way if we want international support for our actions.  The attack could be easily considered an assassination.  Killing him was roughly equivalent to taking out our Director of the CIA or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. General Soleimani was an official of the sovereign nation of Iran.  Additionally, the killing took place on the sovereign territory of Iraq, without their knowledge.  In international law, and in practical support, this has consequences.  It is definitely not the same as taking out Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist leader.  He was an official with diplomatic standing in a sovereign government conducting official business in another sovereign nation.  More importantly to the follow-on actions by Iran, the general was in all practicality the number two official in Iran and a national and regional hero.

Despite Mr. Trump’s pronouncements, we are considerably less safe in the Middle East now than before his death.  Thousands of U.S. forces are being deployed to protect US bases, embassies, and civilians throughout the region.  The forces already deployed to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria have ceased all operations against the terrorists in order to focus on self-protection, known in military parlance as force protection.  NATO forces in the region stopped training Iraqi forces and have departed or hunkered down.  The State Department warned all US citizens to depart Iraq.  The Iraqi parliament voted to demand the departure of all US military personnel.  The US military in Iraq informed their counterparts that they are “re-positioning troops” in Iraq In preparation for withdrawing all or part of the force.

Today, the Iranians officially declared they will no longer adhere to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which eliminated the near-term pursuit of their nuclear weapons program.  Expect them to start building nuclear weapons.

The list goes on.  We are definitely not safer.  It doesn’t help when the world knows and documents that Trump has told over 15,000 lies since taking office.  The support for this action from allies and friends is either non-existent or extremely muted.  His reasons for attacking now lack credibility on the world stage.  There have been imminent threats in that region for decades. It is a dangerous place.  To date, the administration offers no evidence of any new or significant change to the situation.

Additionally, while General Soleimani was charismatic, there are other qualified generals to take his place.  He personally did not carry out attacks.  The troops and covert assets under Iranian control do.  They still exist and are in place.  Killing him will not tactically or operationally stop any attacks.

To me, concerns of an all out war are premature.  But Trump’s decision was immature.  It was a feel good, “aren’t I tough” move rather than a thought out strategic decision.  Although I do not think that all out war is imminent, there is clearly a great opportunity for a miscalculation on each side which could lead to a larger conflict.  There will be a series of tit-for-tat measures taken by both sides.  If the military responses are not proportional and relevant, then the chance for escalation is high. Unfortunately, since Mr. Trump has tripled down on threats to purposefully and deliberately destroy Iranian cultural sites (a war crime under the Geneva Convention) the indications are not ones of restraint by the president.  As Mr. Trump threatens to destroy 52 targets (one for each American hostage in 1979) the Iranians have indicated that they could hit 290 targets (one for each passenger and crew killed by the 1988 shootdown of an Iranian civilian Airbus by the USS Vincennes).

There is another scenario, however.  The Iranians under General Soleimani, with the concurrence of the Ayatollah, was conducting an escalating campaign against American interests to test the limits of what they could get away with.  Since there was no US response, to numerous provocations (shooting down a U.S. drone, mine attacks on tankers, a missile attack on Saudi oil fields, etc.) they were slowly ratcheting up their activities.  They thought that Mr. Trump was afraid of conflict in the Gulf region. They were trying to get the president to accelerate his promise to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq by making it painful to stay.  They were trying to do so without crossing the line into provoking an all out American response. Since their economy is in dire straits, they desperately want to have sanctions lifted.  This attack on the second most important man in Iran may cause them to recalibrate their thinking, even to the point of starting back channel negotiations with the U.S.  The danger is, that even if such negotiations come to pass, it will literally go up in smoke if the US or Iran miscalculates on its military response.

It is well known in international relations that one cannot deter an opponent if they don’t know what it is they are supposed to be deterred from doing.  With the, at best, uneven, at worst, ignorant, Trump foreign policy, it is difficult for friends, enemies and allies to know what is expected of them.  Surprises and unpredictability are assets in actual combat.  They are a detriment in trying to implement a strategy to fulfill any policy, especially in the Middle East.

We are in dangerous times.  All out war is not inevitable.  However, current events are disconcerting given the context that there seems to be no clear strategy to implement our policy, should it be a possible to discern a clear U.S, policy in the region in the first place.

Careening from tweet to tweet does not help us with our allies, our friends or deter our enemies.  Mr. Trump and his advisers need to step back, but not step down, and think through exactly what they are trying to achieve.  They need to think five or six steps ahead and not just react to day to day developments.

I know that there are still conscientious and professional people in the intelligence community, the State Department and the Department of Defense.  The question is whether decision makers will understand what they are being told and will they listen?

The Iranian Strategy – Policy Mismatch

Posted: June 25, 2019 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

One has to wonder where the Trump Administration is headed with their policy towards Iran.  There are, to say the least, a number of contradictions.  However, before I get too far into this, I would like to make three comments.

  • For almost forty years the Iranians have been nothing but trouble-makers.  The government is the number one source of state sponsored terrorism in the world.  The leadership continues to try and export the revolution and to thwart U.S. interests in the Middle East.
  • I am glad that Mr. Trump called off last week’s planned strikes into Iran.  Unfortunately, like so many of his decisions, he did so for the wrong reasons.
  • While on active naval service, I made two port calls in the 1970’s to Iran.  One to Bandar Abbas and one to Khorramshahr.  Interesting places, but maybe not too relevant to this piece.  Since then I made several trips through the Strait of Hormuz on U.S. Navy ships in and out of the Persian Gulf, and every time we were tested by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) armed boats.  No shots fired.

As you know, Iran is responsible for a series of attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman, near the Strait of Hormuz, in recent weeks.  Five total as of this writing.  Additionally, they launched surface-to-air missiles against U.S. military drones, missing once and hitting two including the most controversial last week.  Why?

The most obvious reason is that their economy is being crushed by sanctions imposed by the U.S.  It is having a direct and profound impact on daily life inside Iran.  The sanctions are succeeding in that respect.  While the United States is demonstrating its ability to succeed in this effort, it forces the Iranians to respond in order to demonstrate their own resolve, show their citizens that they will not bow to the U.S., and to attempt to get relief from the sanctions.  In other words, they are demonstrating that they can have an impact on the world’s economy by stopping all Persian Gulf oil, not just Iranian oil, from reaching the market, thus having a direct impact on countries such as Japan and others that rely on that oil for their own economic well-being.  If they cannot totally stop the flow of oil, then they can make it so costly — insurance rates, the price of oil, military requirements to protect tankers, etc. — that it will still have an impact unacceptable to many countries.  (As a side note, when I worked Middle East issues in the Pentagon, insurance rates for shipping in the Gulf was one of our measures of effectiveness (MOE).  If they went up, we needed more resources.  When they went down, we as a military were being effective in keeping the sea lanes open and secure.)  The point is, the Iranians are not going to stop meddling with the shipping lanes in and out of the Gulf until they feel some sanctions relief.

Here is the mismatch.  The Trump Administration claims that the sanctions will be eased when the Iranians come to the table to renegotiate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal.  Mr. Trump pulled us out of it in May of 2018.  One may claim that the JCPOA was a good deal or a bad deal, but in the short term at least it did stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  It opened Iran up to verification of its compliance and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conducts regular inspections to ensure continued compliance.  The other members of the agreement besides the U.S. (the U.K, Russia, China, France, Germany, and European Union) agree that Iran is abiding by the terms of the agreement and all remain in the agreement while working with Iran to keep them from violating its terms.  Even the U.S. intelligence agencies as late as this spring testified in open hearings to Congress that the Iranians continue to abide by it.

So why would Iran return to negotiate a deal that they had already agreed to but from which the United States withdrew and is now punishing Iran for complying with that treaty?  To be fair, one of the main criticisms of the JCPOA is that it addresses only nuclear weapons and not the development of ballistic missiles or Iran’s continued support of terrorism throughout the region.  Fair enough.  The original idea behind the negotiations was to take it one step at a time.  Solve nuclear weapons and then address missiles in another treaty.  Solve missiles and then address stopping terrorist activities.  A building block approach that would instill trust as each step takes effect and allows for continued negotiations.  It may or may not have worked, but now we will likely never know.  More to the current point, why would the Iranians trust the U.S?  And if this president can tear up a treaty with malice of forethought then what would keep the next president — elections are in 18 months and we may have a new one — from tearing up the Trump Treaty?  There is no trust.

Making matters worse for our current strategy is that our trusted allies and friends no longer trust us either.  Some, especially Japan and Germany and France, are not even sure that they can trust us when we say that  the Iranians are definitely behind the recent attacks.  And if they don’t support us now, they will certainly not support us in an armed conflict in the region.  The U.S. does not want to go it alone in this arena.

Making it worse, even it if it sounds logical on one level, is Mr. Trump’s tweet that maybe the U.S. would not protect shipping without being compensated.

“China gets 91% of its Oil from the [Strait of Hormuz], Japan 62%, & many other countries likewise. So why are we protecting the shipping lanes for other countries (many years) for zero compensation. All of these countries should be protecting their own ships on what has always been a dangerous journey.  We don’t even need to be there in that the U.S. has just become (by far) the largest producer of Energy anywhere in the world!”

While on one level it is imperative for a coalition effort to thwart Iranian attempts to disrupt the shipping lanes, on another it ignores the number one maritime objective of the United States — to protect shipping lanes around the world to ensure the free flow of commerce at sea.  Did that just change because “we don’t even need to be there”?

While Mr. Trump once again made himself the hero of a soon to be catastrophe by fixing the crisis he created, still, calling off the strikes last week was the right call.  He made himself into some kind of humanitarian savior by implying that no one told him about possible loss of human life.  I find that insulting to the U.S. military.  He implies that they aren’t doing the job because he didn’t find out about the number of casualties until 10 minutes before the strikes.  Hogwash!  The president, any president, is offered a series of options for him to choose.  Included in the “pros and cons” of any option is the potential loss of life to Americans and to those under attack when the situation is not all out combat but rather a “message” as these were intended to be.  He is either lying or cannot comprehend basic information.  (By the way, in that series of tweets Mr. Trump tries to sound tough by saying that “we were cocked and loaded” to attack.  Anyone that has served in the military would know that no one talks that way in senior, serious discussions and that besides, the expression is “locked and loaded.”)

But I digress.

The best reason for calling off the strikes is that, according to reports from senior, unnamed officials in the Pentagon but thought to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is that there was no second step.  There was no consideration for what is called branches and sequels — what happens and what steps do we take when the Iranians inevitably respond.  There was no clear understanding of what those strikes would do to enhance our strategy of getting the Iranians to the table.  It would in fact, have made that much harder as the Iranians would likely have escalated their attacks and there were no follow-on U.S. plans.  Fundamentally, Mr. Trump and his advisers lost sight of the fact that the enemy gets a vote on how things unfold.  Without thinking through the next steps, having those strikes go forward would have opened up a potential Pandora’s Box of serious trouble in the Gulf.

Remember this.  There is a reason we have fought in Iraq and Syria.  They are not Iran.  Iran has been a bigger trouble-maker in the region and a bigger counter to our policy goals than the other two ever were or could be.  Why haven’t we gone after the Iranians in the same way?  Because it will be hard.

In the 1987-88 Operation Earnest Will, the U.S. and other nations escorted tankers to protect them from the Iranians. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians tried to cut off Iraqi oil shipments through the Gulf.  Besides escorting tankers, the U.S. and coalition forces fought the “tanker wars” to punish the Iranians for placing mines in shipping lanes and other hostile acts.  U.S. Navy ships were hit by mines (none sank) and other Iranian actions resulted in SEAL raids, and attacks on Iranian warships.  Operation Praying Mantis resulted in a number of Iranian ships going to the bottom or being put out of action.  The point is, the Iranian harassment of shipping quickly came to a stop.  The Iranians also learned some valuable lessons in how to combat U.S. forces through asymmetric means.

The Iranian Navy is basically a professional navy built along the lines of most in the world with a recognizable command and control structure.  The real bad guys are the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that have their own forces, ashore and afloat, and do not answer to anyone in the Iranian government other than the Supreme Leader.  Those are the ones to keep an eye on.

So now what?  The Iranians probably think that Mr. Trump is all bluster and no action.  Will that encourage more dangerous provocations on their side?  How will the U.S. respond?  If our policy is to corral Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions than how do we do that?  No easy answers.

Whether we are officially in or out of the JCPOA, along with the other members of the agreement, it would seem to provide the best frame work for re-engaging with the Iranians.  As far as practical, without losing our advantage in the region, talking is better than fighting.  Should it come to war, we will prevail.  But keep in mind that we are not talking about a few cruise missile strikes into empty air fields in Syria.  It will be messy and we will take casualties.  They will not be pushovers and they will test our capabilities.  Right now, the rest of the world may not be with us.  Most importantly, what is the end game?  What do we want from the fighting?  In 1988 it was for them to quit interfering with shipping lanes.  It worked.  Today we say it is guarantees about no nuclear weapons.  How do we achieve that when everything the Iranians see around them (hello, North Korea) indicates that Mr. Trump responds with love letters to those with the weapons who test them, fire ballistic missiles and threaten the U.S. main land?

The Iranians tried negotiations through the JCPOA and feel like they were tricked.  It will not be easy to get them back to the table, no matter how grim their economy.  The Trump Administration needs to re-engage with the Iranians, without preconditions, but without easing sanctions until talks resume.  Then a measured give and take — known in diplomatic circles as “compromise” — can result in the easing of some sanctions in return for specific Iranian actions. This may be the best way to ease us out of this growing crisis.  Without it, expect the Iranians to continue to act out until they find the limit of U.S. patience.