President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites was clearly a tactical success. Turning that into a strategic victory means keeping up the pressure to force Iran to sign a verifiable deal that forever removes its ability to build an atomic bomb.
Victory is the only rational objective of all rationally launched wars. A nation that seeks victory intends to use military force to obtain a clear objective and then assembles and uses the means necessary to achieve it.
America’s “forever wars” of the past three decades arose because our leaders either did not ask the question “What would our victory look like?” or did not assemble and use the means necessary to achieve a clear victory.
Trump clearly does not want to start another forever war. Unlike former Presidents George W. Bush or Barack Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan, he knows exactly what he wants and has clearly shown he will use the necessary force to get it.
Trump wants one thing: The elimination of Iran’s capability to build a nuclear bomb and a negotiated peace with the current regime whereby it recognizes it will never again pursue such a weapon.
His statement on Saturday night indicated he will keep going if Iran does not submit to those terms. He spoke of “other targets” that will be struck if Iran wants to prolong the conflict.
Iran’s naval bases on the Persian Gulf would be one set of targets. Attacking the regime’s bases, installations, and buildings in the southern part of Iran, places beyond Israel’s capabilities to assault regularly, would be a further step. Both of these tasks will take time and sustained effort.
Iran has reportedly threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large share of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies transit. It could also try to strike oil and gas production facilities in neighboring Arab states in an attempt to frighten them into pushing America to give in.
Trump will have to call that bluff if it comes to that. He cannot back down now that he has entered the conflict. Especially after America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, Trump must show that the country has the staying power to force its will on enemies and actually win.
Trump’s ultimate card is to threaten to destroy the regime’s lifeline, its fossil fuel production and transportation capabilities. Iran cannot survive economically without selling oil and natural gas. Threatening to degrade or destroy this will force the regime to make an existential decision: nuclear weapons or not?
That threat, though, would shake global oil markets even more. Oil prices would surge on any credible Iranian action to close the strait or assault Arab facilities. They would likely skyrocket if America started to destroy Iran’s oil industry.
Trump would not want to do this, but Iran’s leaders get a vote in the escalation ladder. If they won’t submit to his will with early pressure, they will use their remaining levers to force him to submit to theirs.
Their Monday attacks on U.S. bases show they are not willing to fold their hands and surrender. They intend to test the president’s resolve by causing pain to America. Trump is going to have to follow through on his threats to unleash more catastrophic damage on the regime, and that means expanding the conflict beyond simply targeting Iran’s nuclear sites.
MAGA critics of the attacks have warned that this series of events inevitably leads to regime change, and that inevitably leads to U.S. troops being deployed. They have a real point, as it’s unlikely that any new regime could effortlessly impose its will on a country that has been ruled by a dictatorship for nearly half a century.
Iranian regime change, if it comes, won’t be rapid and bloodless like those in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. Those communist regimes fell without a shot because the entity that upheld them, the Soviet Union, was unwilling to fire shots to save them. It’s hard to imagine the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps giving up its arms without a fight.
The guards will surely recall what happened to the leaders of the shah of Iran’s army, which did permit Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to seize power without a civil war. Hundreds were executed by the new regime in an effort to eliminate all opposition. If they think they could die anyway, they will go down fighting.
Trump will have to tread carefully if an Iranian civil war erupts. He should avoid the mistake President George H.W. Bush made when he encouraged Iraqis to revolt against Saddam Hussein after Iraq’s defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. Bush refused to use U.S. air power to support the uprising, allowing Iraqi troops and helicopters to crush the rebels. If revolt occurs, Trump should use American air power to destroy the Guard and other loyalist forces, but keep U.S. troops out of the cauldron.
He will also need to keep a wary eye on Russia, China, and North Korea if events cascade toward deeper U.S. involvement in Iran. America possesses a massive military, but it is not massive enough to fight a global war against multiple well-armed adversaries. He must use diplomacy to keep these possible adversaries sidelined while bringing Iran to heel.
Nevertheless, this is the road Trump chose to walk down when he decided to attack Fordow and the other nuclear sites. Backing down now would be a terrible blow to U.S. prestige and global power. Trump must see this out to the end and ensure that, as President Ronald Reagan said of the Cold War, “we win and they lose.”
Declaring victory and going home by agreeing to a face-saving but unenforceable treaty again simply delays the day of reckoning. That is not in America’s interest. If it really is totally unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, Trump must be prepared to take each of these escalatory steps.
IRAN LAUNCHES RESPONSE TO US STRIKES. WILL IT STOP THERE OR ESCALATE?
If Trump understands this, he could actually bring genuine peace to the Middle East. If he doesn’t, then he risks doing the opposite of what he really wants: getting America stuck even deeper in a Middle Eastern quagmire.
Trump’s decision is excruciatingly hard but ultimately deceptively simple: Go big or go home. Let’s hope he understands this and takes the risks inherent in winning wars.
Henry Olsen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a veteran political analyst. He hosts Beyond the Polls, a podcast about elections and campaigns.