Nobody Wants War – but War Is Not Without Benefits

Probably the most preposterous accusation I’ve heard is that by starting the war Donald Trump is trying to increase his chances for a reelection next year.

The US president campaigned on American disengagement and has done a great deal to curb military presence abroad. In a rather rare case of bipartisan understanding, there’s almost nobody in the US politics who would advocate a violent escalation with Iran – neither on the left nor on the right (with exception of John Bolton, maybe).

Engaging in an open war with Iran would likely sink Trump’s campaign, not the other way around – especially as the Democrats would wave Obama’s JCPOA agreement as a sign Iran could be reasoned with (even if this suggestion is baseless, it would still work as a political weapon) but reckless billionaire ruined the chances for world peace.

That is, unless Trump’s administration is able lay a significant blow on the Iranian military, without protracted involvement.

US has already done such a thing in the past, sinking about a half of Iranian fleet in 1988 as a response to Iran’s mining of the Persian Gulf which nearly sunk an American frigate. Operation “Praying Mantis” lasted merely a day but was very precise and effective, and, in addition, contributed to the conclusion of the 8 year long Iran-Iraq war.

Americans will not invade Iran but may hurt it so much that its naval capabilities will be crippled for years.

Such a swift and relatively inexpensive operation, with limited or no loss of American life, would certainly boost Trump’s standing at home, while having the added benefit of sending a signal to other adversaries – like Russia, China or North Korea – that the US is not a paper tiger and will readily deploy its military abroad.

By now it may appear that while the US may find some gain from a carefully planned military confrontation, Iran surely would not risk it – especially after Americans have boosted their presence in the region. But it’s not so simple.

Iran has a very long history of conducting similar low-level harassment, which does not result in major casualties or natural disasters but disrupts regional trade – specifically oil exports. This practice has been going on, with various intensity, for over 30 years, sending a message to other Middle Eastern countries and their buyers, that Gulf oil supplies are under persistent threat.

At the same time, the idea of challenging a major superpower as it is flexing its muscles isn’t exactly new – or irrational.

A similar thing occurred in Syria, where the regime in Damascus – likely advised by its Russian allies – defied Obama’s red line on the first anniversary of his speech, with a chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013.

US president was forced to make a decision – and he backed down, what left the door open for the Russians to sweep in, supposedly remove chemical weapons and take on a greater role in shaping the outcome of the war, knowing that Americans have chosen to remain on the sidelines.

The stance of the Assad regime was similarly defiant – accusing opposition and the “white helmets” of staging the attack to implicate it in a breach of international laws to prompt a foreign intervention. Of course no despot is ever going to admit he’s cynically using violence to save himself.

In a paradoxical way, then, it is very convenient for Iran to attack when the American threat is the most serious, as the opportunity to dismiss each incident as a false flag is best – helping it stoke anti-US sentiments internationally, portraying Washington as unstable and warmongering.

Tehran is testing the limits of American resolve, betting (likely correctly) that USA will not seek a large scale reprisal, which would threaten the regime itself. At the same time, by cornering Trump it may help to undermine his position as either appearing too weak (loud mouth, no action) or crazy and overzealous (destructive madman who preached disengagement and is now dropping bombs).

If executed correctly, this plan may help Democrats defeat him next year, what could open the door to a revival of JCPOA and removal of sanctions.

Both rivals operate within a narrow margin of error. If Tehran oversteps and damage is done not only to its navy but also parts of merchant fleet as well as harbor facilities, its ability to influence regional politics by shipping money and weapons across the region (e.g. to Houthis in Yemen or Hamas in Israel via Red Sea) would be severely damaged.

On the opposite side, if Trump fails to take meaningful action or pushes the US into a major military conflict, he could bury his chances for reelection. But if he’s successful in hurting Iran badly without serious losses, he could win both support at home and respect abroad, helping him both win the next year’s race, as well as push American interests abroad during the next term.