Over the course of the past 24 hours, Donald Trump has variously threatened to “take the oil in Iran,” “take Kharg Island” (Iran’s main oil export hub), claimed to be making “great progress” in negotiations with a “NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME,” and threatened to obliterate the country’s power plans, oil wells, “and possibly all desalinization plants!” unless the Strait of Hormuz is immediately reopened.
This is not out of character. The US president’s wild swings between hyperbolic threats of impending annihilation and claims that a great deal to end the war is within sight, often within the same social media post, are entirely in keeping with how he has approached this war since he announced the first strikes on Iran in the early hours of 28 February.
Back then, Trump framed the conflict with Iran as a historical mission to overthrow the ruling regime, enable Iranians to “take over your government,” which he said would be “probably your only chance for generations,” and put a definitive end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Now, his war aims seem to have been reduced to convincing the American public that he has achieved some form of regime change – even if in reality a possibly even more hardline version of the old regime is now in charge. Even more urgent is resolving the spiralling problems this conflict has unleashed, namely Tehran’s newly demonstrated ability to block the Strait of Hormuz, and the looming catastrophe that portends for the global economy.
Trump’s defenders have long claimed that his “madman” approach to geopolitics is part of an ingenious strategy that is designed to keep his opponents off-balance and extract eye-watering concessions as he pursues his next great deal. The problem for Trump is that Tehran also seems to view Trump’s increasingly apocalyptic utterances as a negotiating tactic that is aimed just as much at calming financial markets and easing the price of oil as it is at forcing them to the table for serious talks – and so they are calling his bluff. The regime seems to be calculating that they can withstand the continued bombardment by the US and Israel for longer than Trump will be able to tolerate soaring energy prices, particularly in an election year.
Yet ending this war, even if Trump was so inclined, is no longer a matter of simply declaring victory and going home. The danger is that Tehran then decides to continue exercising its control over one of the world’s most important maritime energy transit corridors for months to come, extracting a steep price from its ability to threaten shipping in the strait. (There are reports that some tankers are already paying a $2m toll to Iran for safe passage through the waterway.)
This leaves Trump contemplating a strategy of “escalating to de-escalate”, as Western analysts once, likely erroneously, described Russia’s nuclear doctrine. The theory of the case now circulating in Washington is that the US must deliver a “final blow” to Tehran, which could involve a ground assault alongside an even more devastating bombing campaign. The precise form such an operation might take remains unclear. There are reports that Trump is weighing an offensive to seize three small islands in the Strait of Hormuz, Kharg Island, the export terminal in the northern Persian Gulf, and even a special forces raid to locate and extract the estimated 400kg of highly enriched uranium hidden somewhere in Iran since last summer’s B2 bombing raid during the 12-Day War.
With the arrival of around 2,500 Marines over the weekend and thousands more troops en route, the US is now thought to have around 50,000 personnel in the region. Along with a sizeable armada of warships nearby, this gives Trump the option to order a ground assault in the coming days. Yet this remains a high-risk endeavour. For all the US military’s formidable capabilities, seizing and – more importantly – holding Iranian territory would be a dangerous mission that threatens to claim even more American lives. Thirteen US service members have already been killed and hundreds more wounded. A ground assault would also risk Tehran following through on its threats to escalate attacks across the Gulf, targeting their energy infrastructure and desalination plants if its own facilities are bombed.
Trump has no good options. He can declare victory, claiming to have degraded Iran’s capabilities and doubling down on his fantastical claim to have delivered a new regime, hoping that Tehran plays along and that Americans have forgotten about the self-inflicted crisis by the midterm elections in November. But this risks humiliation if the Strait of Hormuz remains selectively closed. He can order a ground assault, but this risks American lives and another protracted conflict along precisely the lines that he and his conspicuously quiet vice-president JD Vance, promised to avoid. Trump’s latest deadline for Iran to reopen the strait or face “obliteration” is 6 April. Assuming Tehran remains unmoved, we will soon learn which of these perilous choices Trump has decided to embrace.
[Further reading: The everything shock]
Content from our partners
Related
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment