If all it took for the Iran war to be over, let alone “won”, was non-stop bombing by America, victory would long ago have been delivered to the White House.
And yet, despite the dozens of times that Donald Trump has declared his campaign done and dusted, it still rumbles on. The “memorandum of understanding” signed less than a month ago has been disowned by both sides, and both have escalated the conflict once again.
Iran has been firing at US bases and other targets in Jordan and the Gulf, with some American casualties. The US has conducted a bombing campaign for 10 consecutive days to “further degrade” Tehran’s ability to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and control the Strait of Hormuz. Now, the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen have announced a “maritime embargo” against Saudi Arabia.
Analogous to the Strait of Hormuz, if the Houthis do succeed in closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait in the Red Sea, they would effectively choke off traffic moving through the Suez Canal.
With the perspective of only a few weeks of steadily increasing military activity, it is apparent that the American strategy is failing, and that President Trump, egged on by his friend and ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has caught himself in a trap of his own making. Like a snare, the harder the US tries to extricate itself, the tighter and more painful the noose becomes.
So the more Mr Trump bombs, the higher the oil price, and the reaction domestically and in financial markets forces him to either bomb more heavily or else “chicken out”. An all-out war involving enormous US land forces and risking civil war in Iran is unthinkable. Hence this endless cycle.
When America attacks Iran, every retaliatory strike – as Tehran has proved it can still deliver – risks making the entire region more unstable, sending gas and oil prices soaring and hitting even the supposedly self-sufficient United States.
A barrel of oil is trading around $85 again, roughly where it was when the war broke out in early March. The $4 gallon of gasoline is once again a fearful and resented fact of life at US pumps. It is no surprise that, when also accounting for some weariness at his usual antics, President Trump’s approval ratings are at historic lows.
Some heavy defeats at the midterm elections in November beckon. That, in turn, will lead to Mr Trump losing control of both houses of the legislature, fresh impeachment action, Epstein-related disclosures, and general chaos. His reputation, such as it is, will be dragged down even lower – and he himself will qualify for the title of “worst president in history”. The Nobel Peace Prize has certainly slipped over the horizon.
The president sometimes pleads that this has only been a short war with low casualties by historical standards. True – but in its own way, it is just as intractable as Vietnam or Iraq, for example, and for similar reasons. Once again, the enemy is smaller and weaker than the nuclear superpower ranged against it, but by using “asymmetric” techniques – such as cheap air and sea drones, in this case – by lashing out at lightly defended US local allies, and, above all, by holding the global economy hostage, Iran can defy America and win just by surviving.
The stage has been reached where nervous Republicans may soon tire of being sidelined by the president. Congress, using the war powers and budgetary controls it already possesses, might finally stir itself to pressure Mr Trump into a settlement with Iran, and a withdrawal. In this effort, they could be joined by a military unable to see an honourable conclusion the longer this goes on. What remains of the Department of State should surely be concerned at how this debilitating conflict leaves the US weaker while China and Russia continue to back Iran with impunity.
But on what terms to settle? The latest US intelligence suggests that Iran is unlikely to soften its negotiating position as a result of new rounds of strikes. A purely military solution is impossible while the Islamic Republic continues to function. Tehran will not unconditionally surrender, as was once supposed.
Negotiation on the best terms America can secure is the least worst option, even at the cost of some humiliation. For the world, for America, and for the president himself, that is preferable to more loss of life and economic damage before accepting the inevitable. The first step is simple: stop the bombing.
