Both Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump came into office with the desire to end the long wars America had been fighting in the Middle East. Both had been opposed to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. President Obama chose the standard isolationist approach: withdraw U.S. forces from combat and appease adversaries. He pulled all American troops out of Iraq in 2011 and signed a "nuclear deal" with Iran in 2015 based on a generous supply of carrots. This approach proved, as usual, a failure. Non-intervention does not create peace. It creates a power vacuum that others seek to fill, with consequences the U.S. cannot ignore.

President Obama ended up recommitting troops to Iraq in 2014 to confront the ISIS Caliphate and provide support for "moderate" forces in the Syrian Civil War that were attempting to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Iran. The Syrian gambit was half-hearted and could not match the strength Iran could bring to the battlefield even before Russia directly intervened in 2015. Turkey took control of the Free Syrian Army in 2016 with a more determined attitude and a more effective buildup of proxy forces.

President Trump inherited a complex situation which he believed was costing too much, for dubious results. As a practical leader, he wants results and his instinct is to act decisively. He stepped up military operations to defeat ISIS primarily using Kurdish troops backed by heavy airstrikes. But he understood that Iran was the major threat to the region. In his Jan. 3 statement announcing the drone strike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, he declared "the Iranian regime’s aggression in the region, including the use of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbors, must end, and it must end now."

Tehran's Hezbollah army, based in Lebanon, was fighting in Syria. Its Quds Force was organizing Shia militia groups in Iraq to dominate its neighbor and was active in supporting the Houthi uprising in Yemen bordering Saudi Arabia. Gen. Suleimani was the leader of all these Iranian operations and had the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands. Eliminating him was clearly legitimate. President Trump had also continued to support the Saudi-led coalition fighting Iran's proxies in Yemen (started under President Obama) despite strong Congressional opposition from Democrats and some libertarian Republicans.

In April 2018, the U.S. led air and missile strikes against Syrian chemical weapons facilities with the support of British and French forces. President Obama had failed to launch such attacks in 2013 when Syria had crossed a "red line" by using chemical weapons against civilians. The Assad regime threatened retaliation, but U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley declared that the U.S. was "locked and loaded" and would respond to any Syrian attacks---and none came. This was the first step towards a new strategy that plays to American strength without tying American forces down in prolonged ground wars and "nation-building."

The concept is called "punitive expeditions" and is as old as military history itself. Rather than fight on the enemy's terms, the U.S. can seize the high ground of escalation dominance. Anyone who provokes the United States must expect to have an unprecedented cataclysm visited upon them. The concept of proportionality with its endless "tit-for-tat" exchanges that weaker enemies can perpetuate is to be abandoned. The result aimed for is to be lopsided and very destructive, with the ability of the enemy to recover crippled. This is the message President Trump sent to a Tehran regime that had vowed revenge for Suleimani. It is better to deter wars than to fight them by making anything but peace look suicidal to opponents.

This may not always be as easy as "push-button warfare." Punitive operations may require taking the war to the enemy on the ground in a more comprehensive manner than air strikes. At the high end, the adversary’s infrastructure must be crippled, hidden arsenals destroyed and leaders tracked down. But the objective is not occupation, and certainly not nation-building. The purpose is just the opposite; punishment for bad behavior on a scale beyond the calculations of any rational regime.

President Trump has used this strategy several times. When Turkey moved into northern Syria last October, President Trump withdrew American troops from their path. There are strategic benefits from stronger Turkish-Sunni forces occupying territory liberated from Assad. Concern for the safety of the Kurds, who had fought valiantly at America's side, was met by a direct threat from President Trump who tweeted: "As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I...consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey." There was strong bi-partisan support for this stance. Though not a military threat, it was an expression of American escalation dominance in an area of Turkish vulnerability. Turkey limited its advance to only 20 miles. U.S. troops then secured oil fields in the area, their presence backed by the specter of devastating firepower.

Just before Christmas, North Korea threatened to send a presumed hostile "Christmas gift" to the U.S. as part of its campaign to force the lifting of sanctions as a precondition for renewed de-nuclearization talks. The Trump administration made it known that it would respond to any provocation. "The United States will take action as we do in these situations,” said National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien. “If Kim Jong Un takes that approach, we’ll be extraordinarily disappointed and we’ll demonstrate that disappointment.” No "gift" was sent. Kim remains deterred from conducting nuclear and long-range ballistic missile tests. It was a show of force that brought Pyongyang to the table originally and it will take continued pressure to move the talks forward.

In the current Iran crisis, the missile attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq which Tehran declared where revenge for Suleimani's death did only minor damage and inflicted no casualties. The attacks were minimalist and ineffectual (perhaps on purpose). The Iraq regime had to save face and do something it could sell to a people whose anger it had stoked. But it dared not risk doing something that would bring down the punitive levy of massive U.S. retaliation. The debate within the regime was lost by the hardliners who talked of offensives across the region, including against the Gulf States and Israel, and even of strikes on the American homeland which have always unleashed Armageddon in reply. In contrast, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted, “We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.” Trump's stance was deemed credible. Iran dodged a barrage of bullets by firing a blank.

Tehran is not the only regime that found restraint better than violence and was deterred. Just days before the crisis, China and Russia held joint naval drills with Iran. The Chinese Communist newspaper Global Times reported "The trilateral drill is the first of its kind at a time when Iran is facing unprecedented sanctions from the US." Yet, after the drone strike, Beijing called for restraint on all sides. While blaming the U.S. for "adventurism" and highlighting "antiwar" sentiment in America, the Chinese were also aware that a wider war would harm them as well. Sen. Lindsey Graham had called for the destruction of Iran's oil refineries whose largest customer is China. As Global Times noted, "Chinese purchases of oil from the Middle East lead the world by volume, which means China is far more dependent on the region's oil than the U.S. China also has large investments in Iran, Iraq and many other Middle Eastern countries." Beijing will use its substantial influence in Tehran to dissuade escalation; its support for Iran tempered by its own interests. And other countries will do the same.

Iran is ruled by theocrats so rationally will not always win. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said the missile attacks were not enough. It may take additional lessons to acquaint the hardliners with reality. And it will be lessons others will see as well and do the math. America's power is overwhelming in the hands of a President who is willing to us it. It is the program for peace through strength.

William R. Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor who has served on the staff of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Image credit: USAF Staff Sgt. Alexx Pons // public domain