amman
—
A war that has been “won,” but “not over yet.” “Excursion” calling for Iran’s “unconditional surrender”. President Donald Trump’s rhetorical knots fit well with his style of dictating America’s information diet, but they fall apart when faced with the harsh realities of conflict.
“Winning” in war is different than in sports. The score does not declare a winner even after the pre-agreed time has elapsed. The U.S. government’s bravado and gamer-style videos pushing ahead with attacks on Iran belie the extraordinary seriousness of the moment that got out of hand. How far will Americans have to go to get Iran to act as if it has been defeated, rather than simply declaring, “We won,” as President Trump did in Kentucky on Wednesday?
President Trump is now falling into one of the oldest traps of modern warfare. They believe that swift and surgical military operations will yield swift and lasting political results. The Soviet Union did it in Afghanistan. In 2003, the US stationed troops in Iraq. President Putin did the same thing in Ukraine, where he continues to fight. No matter what military force the military initially applies and fails or succeeds, the attacking people have a stronger determination to defend their lands and homes.
The White House may have seized on the decapitation attack opportunity provided by Israeli intelligence to rush into this. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has very different goals regionally, and long-term US involvement in Iran suits his desire to see Iran no longer a threat and gradually disintegrate. However, the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on February 28 brought many problems as well as solutions.
There is no Delcy Rodriguez waiting for President Trump to anoint her, as she did when the U.S. military captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Instead, Iranian hardliners have filled the void with Khamenei’s son Mojtaba, the very person President Trump has publicly said he does not want.
It is unclear whether Mojtaba is well enough to record a video announcing his leadership, but his first message since becoming supreme leader was read out on air Thursday, according to Iranian state media.
It is clear that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) seeks bloody revenge for the persistent assassinations of its commanders, just as one would expect the US military to do if President Trump, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and much of the US intelligence community were killed.
This anger hampers any prospects for an immediate end to the Trump presidency. Within 13 days, Iran had turned this into an endurance test of its own survival.
The United States could continue bombing for months without depleting critical munitions stocks, and would face both greater political damage ahead of November’s midterm elections and the risk of even more American casualties.
Although Iran will continue to lose launchers, drone bases, personnel, and infrastructure, it is likely that enough will survive that the Iranian military will not have to stop and kneel. Revolutionary Guard leaders have been preparing for this moment for years. That is their mission. We may run out of bombs, drones, and even men, but we will run out of motivation. This was also a lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Iran, support for the regime is divided. However, the air strikes create a strange kindred spirit among the survivors. The short-sighted idea that a sufficiently precise strike could ensure a widespread Iranian popular uprising is gradually being exposed as a sham. Democracy and regime change are now aspirations in the rearview mirror for President Trump, who aims to end the war.
Instead, the limits of U.S. air power are being exposed. Although Iran can change regimes in terms of capacity and leadership, it has not yet been able to force regimes to change their methods or force regime change as Iran has. And over time, as the target list thins out and the items Americans and Israelis need to attack become more involved in civilian life, the barrage will become less effective and more likely to be deadly to civilians.
For Iran, the risk-reward calculus is moving in the opposite direction. They will harass and destroy ships in the Strait of Hormuz, keep oil prices above $100, and force the global economy to protest that President Trump could have foreseen this would happen. Iran’s missile attacks may decrease, but it will be a victory if Iran continues to persist.
Now Trump is starting to talk about the end and victory every day, but it’s so obvious that he wants to stop. Message discipline comes in handy in war, and he let the enemy know he wanted to retreat now.
For the Iranian regime, therefore, the path to victory, or at least not to defeat, suddenly became very clear, albeit a long one. You just have to survive. It is possible that Trump or Israel could kill a second Khamenei, but the resulting Iranian resolve would be much harder to overcome. (Americans learned in Afghanistan that nightly raids on the Taliban leadership actually made it difficult to quell the war; all they had left were the short-tempered and grieving sons of their dead leader to talk to.)
But for now, this is not a “forever war.” It’s 13 days after birth. Silent diplomacy, or sheer exhaustion, is likely to subside the violence in the coming weeks and allow both sides to claim victory.
The Iranian regime will then be rebuilt stronger, more violent, and more brutal. Iran’s member states recognize that while the full might of the US military can kill the supreme leader and decimate the military, it cannot eliminate the still unpopular cabal. That’s a big psychological victory. Russia and China will definitely help them get back on their feet. He’s not 10 feet tall, but he’s stable enough to throw a punch.
The United States will likely need to consider another onslaught at some point in the future to weaken a rebuilt Tehran. Europe could also face the same dilemma it currently has with Ukraine. Russia is attacking Ukraine’s European allies with asymmetric warfare (sabotage and cyberattacks), presumably to provoke a broader conflict while imposing costs. Iran is likely to fall into a similar pattern. That is, provoking the United States frequently until it becomes clear that it is failing to rein in Iran, but not enough to risk provoking another open conflict.
The most consequential decision a United States president can make is to send troops to war. Trump isn’t the only one fumbling with this ball. George W. Bush did it (twice). Barack Obama thought he could win Afghanistan if he tried a little harder, but Joe Biden’s chaotic withdrawal revealed how poorly the United States understood its failure in Afghanistan.
Trump declared victory for the first time in 12 days, but it has yet to be accepted by his opponents. He now faces the impossible task of reconciling his insurmountable desire to appear victorious with Iran’s relentless desire to appear unstoppable. There is no strategy to wait until exhaustion, but that seems to be the only strategy at the moment.
