Common sense tells us that the enemy of our enemy is our friend, and as well the converse: the friend of our enemy is our enemy. In dealing with Iran, especially regarding the Strait of Hormuz, abiding by these simple truths would largely solve America’s issues and restore political viability to the conflict.
President Donald Trump is presently prohibiting our ally Israel from attacking our mutual enemy Iran, whereas at the outset of the military action, he warmly welcomed Israel as a powerful and effective partner. This reversal has been accompanied by Vice President JD Vance’s constant insulting of Israel.
A large factor in this perverse strategy is the Arab Gulf countries’ demands that Israel be excluded, for fear of “widening” the conflict by Iranian targeting of them. Yet, like Trump, these countries had at the outset of the conflict seemed comforted by the overwhelming might of the joint U.S.-Israeli forces.
TRUMP’S GIFT TO IRAN THAT KEEPS ON GIVING — HIS NAME IS JD VANCE
At first blush, it seems to make no sense to sideline Israel. Iran, although using bellicose, aggressive rhetoric, anyone with a sense knows that the country is barely surviving economically and militarily. Its erratic, unimpressive drone strikes on the Strait of Hormuz are enough, albeit barely, to make tankers avoid this route. But its interference is unlikely to be sustained in the face of sustained attack.
Wouldn’t Israel’s renewed aggression help to indisputably open the Strait and further weaken Iran? It takes no great insight to see that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps cannot stay in power for long, and that, while weakened, they pose no threat to anyone. Unleashing Israel, it therefore would seem, should be a no-brainer if America’s goal is reopening the Strait with commercial certainty.
However, the psychology of this situation is perverse. Trump likes to think of himself as a winner, and so long as he acted accordingly, the Gulf States were satisfied that, along with Israel, their feared neighbor Iran would be destroyed. But today, thanks to Vance, America has shown weakness through the cut-and-run strategy seemingly revealed through a feckless memorandum of understanding.
The “settlement” Vance claimed to have procured not only left Iran’s rulers intact, but also gave billions to their evil regime, supposedly to rebuild its economy. All sensible observers knew immediately that the primary effect of these billions would be to revive the terrorism that had been so effectively stymied by the original military action.
Although the deal is no longer in force, the few days it was honored gave Iran $6 billion in sanctions relief to purchase weapons and Chinese/Russian intelligence, so as to locate and bomb nearby targets and harass tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.
America, it thereby strongly appeared to the Gulf States, was all too willing to negotiate with Iran, not from a position of strength but from one of appeasement and enablement of a revived Guard. A revived Guard will punish its neighbors suspected of partnering with Israel, and, indeed, the MOU showed an American intention to throttle Israel and protect Iran’s proxies. No wonder that the Gulf countries fear Israel’s involvement, for fear of retaliation from a revived Guard.
Trump’s handling of the Iran conflict is increasingly unpopular, for many because Vance’s MOU made the war appear to be a mistake by an America too weak to finish off the regime. To add fuel to this fire, Vance is being allowed to ramp up his rhetoric of appeasement, now going so far as to proclaim that keeping the current Iranian leadership intact is good for global security. The signal to Gulf allies is unmistakable: America will abandon you, and contain Israel, all in order to have marginally cheaper gas before the midterm elections.
With each discouraging word from Vance, the price on Trump’s head escalates. A President Vance is an even more attractive Iranian thought than a Vance MOU. Reversing that defeatist thinking — a true R.D. Laing “knot” of neurotic psychology — would not be difficult, and it must be done.
Using Israeli and American military power could definitively open the Strait of Hormuz within weeks without an agreement with Iran — an agreement that, in any case, would demand too high a price. For Trump, this is not only the best option — it is the only realistic one.
If Trump publicly and plainly announces a “no deal” strategy, the Gulf countries would be more amenable to the use of Israel’s firepower. Once the strait is sufficiently open to allay the fears of shippers, no deal with Iran is necessary. Trump can then declare victory: Iran has been put in its place, and the regime is now on its deathbed.
JD VANCE: AN ISOLATIONIST SOPHOMORE WHO NEGOTIATED VICTORY INTO HUMILIATING CAPITULATION
But this strategic posture can only have credibility if Trump privately silences his cocky, sophomoric vice president. Once the strategy proves successful, Vance can then take some credit, and at least partially resuscitate his standing with conventional national security conservatives.
But so long as Trump utters the word “negotiate” in the same sentence as “Iran,” he will be acting in the role of an appeasing loser. If he does not want that epithet to characterize his presidency, he should openly engage Israel while quietly disengaging his vice president.
John D. O’Connor is a former federal prosecutor and the San Francisco attorney who represented W. Mark Felt during his revelation as Deep Throat in 2005. O’Connor is the author of the books Postgate: How the Washington Post Betrayed Deep Throat, Covered Up Watergate and Began Today’s Partisan Advocacy Journalism and The Mysteries of Watergate: What Really Happened. O’Connor and Mark Felt also collaborated on the 2006 book, A G-Man’s Life.