Search results for "iran"

Trump promises politically convenient end-date for Iran War

President Donald Trump promised that the Iran War would end "immediately after the election" during a tempestuous press conference on Wednesday.

Speaking outside of his plane that will soon whisk him away to the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, Trump began with insults toward ABC News (which he described as "fake news"), a declaration that his war against Iran had destroyed their economy and an insistence that Americans should accept high oil prices so that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons. Then he reassured the press that "I think the war is gonna end immediately after the election." He then repeated "I think the war will end immediately after the election."

Trump has struggled politically because of the Iran War, which was unpopular before he even declared it with American voters. In part, Trump is compensating for this issue by planning on rigging the midterm elections through methods ranging from interfering with mail-in ballots and interfering with state control of the electoral process to purging voters from the rolls. Yet despite these efforts, Trump continues to struggle with the Iran War not merely because he promised to keep America out of unnecessary wars during his 2024 campaign, but because the war has increased the inflation problem he inherited upon taking office.

“I would guess that yes, destruction of Iranian (and some other) energy facilities in the Persian Gulf area will have at least a medium-term effect keeping prices for crude oil and chemical fertilizer high, and that in turn means gasoline prices may come down only slowly,” Dr. Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the Progressive Policy Institute, told AlterNet in April. “Same for other petroleum-based products such as plastics, skin creams, and so on. The high potential of conflict also adds risk premiums to shipping and other costs.”

He added, “Longer-term, lots of open questions. One is whether the administration will really concede that Iran has a right to close the Strait of Hormuz and assess tolls on shipping passing through it. That would make the smaller Gulf monarchies and to some extent Iraq reliant on Iranian good will for all of their exports. Likewise, Asian countries are the main buyers of Persian Gulf energy, and their supplies would be much less secure.”

Trump has also indicated, through his cycling between bombing campaigns and pauses, that he has run out of options in terms of how to win the war.

"Foreign policy experts say the latest round of hostilities point to a reality that has become increasingly clear of Mr. Trump’s handling of the war: He has run out of options," reported by The New York Times' Erica L. Green last week. Green interviewed Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist who worked for Trump's State Department during his first term.

“The strategy has been rinse and repeat, whether it’s rhetorical or kinetic action,” Bartlett told Green. “It’s been absolutely shocking how the United States has been exposed for a lack of a plan of engagement, and a lack of a plan to either win or exit this war.”

From Your Site Articles

Trump’s own military placing bets on an Iran win: report

CNN reports President Donald Trump’s own servicemembers appear to be hedging their bets against the United States in Trump’s war on Iran.

Marshall Cohen, CNN senior reporter, spoke with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer on Friday to discuss the revelation that roughly 150 Polymarket accounts appear to be U.S. military insiders, some with clear access to sensitive military information.

The prediction site Polymarket outed dozens of accounts that showed signs of potential military insider trading to the Justice Department for investigation, a senior company official told CNN. The referrals pertained to accounts flagged by a watchdog group in a Thursday report.

“That nonpartisan organization, the Anti-Corruption Data Collective, said it analyzed a massive trove of publicly available Polymarket data and found 152 accounts that profited about $8 million on war markets – including about the Iran war – and contained several hallmarks of insider activity,” reports CNN.

Many of the accounts showed signs of potential insider activity with brand-new wallets that placed remarkably well-timed bets with longshot odds. They had a staggering 97 percent win rate, despite most traders on prediction sites losing money, according to Polymarket sources speaking with CNN.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'Rinse and repeat': Trump unintentionally reveals he has no plan for Iran

President Donald Trump's ongoing war against Iran remains unpopular both with the American public and with the international community. Now a new report reveals that experts are convinced the president's "rinse and repeat" approach to handling the conflict reveals that he lacks either a plan to win or a means of gracefully exiting.

"Foreign policy experts say the latest round of hostilities point to a reality that has become increasingly clear of Mr. Trump’s handling of the war: He has run out of options," reported by The New York Times' Erica L. Green on Wednesday. Green proceeded to interview Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist who worked in the State Department during Trump's first term.

Bartlett also pointed out that Trump's repeatedly professed hope that the Iranian people might take over the government exposes the fact that he has no strategy for winning the conflict with the American military.

“When you get to the bottom,” he added, “you go back to the top of the ladder of engagement.”

In addition to Bartlett, a top think tank scholar pointed out that Trump's actions in Iran reveal that he planned on prevailing through the use of overwhelming raw power when the situation on the ground is more complicated.

“The U.S. has demonstrated its capacity, and that it continues to have one of the most effective militaries in the world,” Michael Froman, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, told Green. “I think the challenge is this asymmetric warfare — where we do have the most effective military in the world, but smaller powers with far less capacity, strategically deployed, could still wreak havoc and make it difficult for us to achieve 100 percent of our objectives.”

Green elaborated on exactly how Trump's foreign policy moves in Iran have tipped his hand and revealed the weakness of the cards he is playing.

"The post followed a 24-hour stretch during which Mr. Trump’s by-now familiar playbook for the conflict was on full display," Green wrote. "The president went from boasting that Iran was defeated militarily, a 'failed nation' in economic disarray, to threatening an apocalyptic attack that would leave “very little left” of the country after it had defied his declarations and demands."

She added, "By Wednesday morning, as Iran and the United States assessed the damage of the most recent attacks, Mr. Trump was back to trolling the country on social media, asking his followers whether the United States should name the Strait of Hormuz the 'Trump Strait.' Foreign policy experts say the latest round of hostilities point to a reality that has become increasingly clear of Mr. Trump’s handling of the war: He has run out of options."

Speaking to AlterNet in April, an expert economist noted that the ongoing war is exerting pressure on the American people because — by closing the Strait of Hormuz — Iran has exacerbated America's pre-existing inflation problem.

“I would guess that yes, destruction of Iranian (and some other) energy facilities in the Persian Gulf area will have at least a medium-term effect keeping prices for crude oil and chemical fertilizer high, and that in turn means gasoline prices may come down only slowly,” Dr. Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at the Progressive Policy Institute, told AlterNet. “Same for other petroleum-based products such as plastics, skin creams, and so on. The high potential of conflict also adds risk premiums to shipping and other costs.”

He continued, “Longer-term, lots of open questions. One is whether the administration will really concede that Iran has a right to close the Strait of Hormuz and assess tolls on shipping passing through it. That would make the smaller Gulf monarchies and to some extent Iraq reliant on Iranian good will for all of their exports. Likewise, Asian countries are the main buyers of Persian Gulf energy, and their supplies would be much less secure.”

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

'He lost': Expert delivers grim obituary for Trump's failure in Iran

University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer on Sunday delivered a harsh reality check to US President Donald Trump over the state of his illegal war with Iran.

In an interview with Australian journalist Tom Switzer, Mearsheimer was asked why Trump seemed willing to accept an arrangement in which Iran is able to demand fees from transport ships in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which has been almost entirely shut down since the US and Israel began bombing Iran in late February.

“It’s very simple... he has no choice,” Mearsheimer replied. “He lost the war. This is a devastating defeat for the United States. Can you tell me what the United States should do to regain leverage over Iran? I actually think you can’t tell me because we have no solution.”

Mearsheimer then explained why Trump’s threats to escalate his assault on Iran ring completely hollow.

“One, he’s out of munitions,” the political scientist said. “Number two, our Gulf allies have told him, in no uncertain terms, that is unacceptable because the Iranians have made it clear that if we escalate, they will escalate, and they will destroy oil facilities, desalination plants, and so forth.”

In the same discussion, Vali Nasr, professor of international affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, similarly argued that Iran appears to be in the driver’s seat, noting that “the period where you can basically pressure Iran into submission... I think is gone.”

Nasr added that Iran now appears to be “very comfortable demanding” concessions from the US in exchange for reopening the strait, and he said that many in the Washington foreign policy establishment had yet to understand this fact.

“In reality, Iran is not overplaying its hand,” he said. “It’s just playing its hand.”

The scholars’ arguments were echoed by Daniel DePetris, fellow at Defense Priorities, who wrote in an analysis published Monday that the US has little choice but to accept Iran charging fees to ships in exchange for passage through the strait.

While acknowledging such a situation is far from ideal, DePetris said that it became inevitable when Trump launched his unprovoked war without authorization from the US Congress more than five months ago.

“Trump’s war handed Iran the perfect excuse to leverage its geography, and the Iranians didn’t hesitate to do so,” wrote DePetris. “Over time, the Strait of Hormuz, in addition to Iran’s more aggressive posture toward its neighbors writ-large, has become something far more valuable: a strategic card Iran can play whenever Trump threatens to accelerate military operations.”

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump pounds his biggest 'yes-man' to the curb as Iran triumphs: sources

Sources inside the White House say President Donald Trump is suffering the consequences of surrounding himself with yes-men and good news as Iran continues to beat him to pieces, according to Daily Mail.

Trump unilaterally attacked Iran in February, convinced that the invasion would be quick and effective. But apparently the president kept sound advice out of the equation before he launched the assault that has been slogging on for six months. It’s not the nature of Trump to take responsibility for his own mistakes, however -- so he appears to be taking it out on his bootlicks by sidelining at least one, according to sources.

“One is a sledge-hammer and the other is a scalpel,” the anonymous source told Daily Mail, comparing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

“Hegseth, among others in the president's orbit, 'tells Trump what he wants to hear,'” the Daily Mail reports, citing the insider, who echoed “concerns about Trump's 'yes-men' military advisors shared by Republicans on Capitol Hill.”

According to the Daily Mail, Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dan Caine, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others all get a chance to update the commander-in-chief, a source familiar with the proceedings told the Daily Mail. But recently, Trump has been elevating Bessent in these settings.

The elevation of Trump’s new “golden boy” followed an explosion at a Camp David retreat earlier this month after Trump became furious that all the good news he demands from his flunkies did not live up to the reality of the war. Most notably, the U.S. military's shortage of critical defense munitions, which Trump had been convinced “had been fixed,” reported the Daily Mail.

'The environment changed,' the Trump insider said, describing a realization inside the administration that Trump simply “can't bludgeon [Iran] anymore.”

Now Bessent appears eager to step into the captain’s chair from which Hegseth was ejected.

“He's very trusted,” the source close to the president said. “It's not just on Iran, his stock is increasing. He's just more and more involved in things.”

Hegseth's allies insist the Treasury Secretary's promotion is not a demotion for the Secretary of Defense, however.

“There are limits to how much militarily will be accepted by the public and by the Congress,” a senior Department of Defense official close to Hegseth told the Daily Mail. “The economic measures complement the bombing campaign.”

The new phase is “a much better strategy,” the official added.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Iran is saving its most devastating attack for Trump’s midterm: retired general

The Hill reports a retired general suspects Iran has President Donald Trump at a severe disadvantage, and they’re plan to unleash it at Trump’s most painful moment.

“Retired Gen. Jack Keane forecasted Thursday that Iran’s military would whack Trump with their most devastating weapon closer to November — US voters.

“I think as we get closer to the midterms, it’s likely they will,” he told Fox Business Network’s Stuart Varney.

“And the reason for that is because they believe in their head now that they have something of an upper hand here, Stuart, because we went through the ceasefire over oil and gas prices and the impact of the midterms and as we get closer to the midterms, they think the less likelihood that President Trump react very consequentially in terms of military operations,” he added.

Keane has advised leaders of both parties on foreign policy, including Hillary Clinton and Trump himself. Trump watched Keane on Fox News for years, and referred to him as “my No. 1 guy,” according to the Hill. He’d even (temporarily) advised Trump against attacking Iran in 2019.

The general was quick to advise Iran against that strategy on Fox.

“If that’s their game plan — and it could very well be — they’re going to miscalculate here because he absolutely will come down hard on them as a result of it,” Keane said.

But Trump’s attacks on the Middle Eastern nation have done nothing to bully the nation into a ceasefire after Trump first attacked the country in a joint missile strike with Israel. In fact, White House insiders say the “uncertainty and incompetence” of President Donald Trump’s administration is on full display as he grows increasingly desperate for ideas on how to end his war with Iran. Reporting from Politico buttressed claims of the administration’s internal turmoil as it struggles to extract itself from the Middle East in a situation “reminiscent of the darkest days of the Iraq war.”

The moment is extremely dangerous,” said Elliott Abrams, a longtime Middle East hawk who worked for Trump in his first term. “And the Trump administration is showing uncertainty and incompetence.”

Reports reveal Trump’s unilateral war with Iran have depleted the U.S. military's munitions stock. While the White House has attempted to deny reports about the stockpile, Trump also reportedly ripped into his own officials over the situation during a recent visit to Camp David.

And if Iranian leaders watch the news, they already know that Trump is hemorrhaging support as the war staggers on. While at first it was largely from independents, now, "new polling shows a large chunk of MAGA turning on the war," say analysts.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Insiders describe 'uncertainty and incompetence' as Trump flails for escape

According to White House insiders, the “uncertainty and incompetence” of President Donald Trump’s administration is on full display as he becomes increasingly desperate for ideas on how to end his war with Iran. New reporting from Politico has revealed the administration’s internal turmoil as it struggles to extract itself from the Middle East in a situation “reminiscent of the darkest days of the Iraq war.”

“The moment is extremely dangerous,” said Elliott Abrams, a longtime Middle East hawk who worked for Trump in his first term. “And the Trump administration is showing uncertainty and incompetence.”

He isn’t alone in this assertion. According to insiders, writes Politico, “Trump is further damaging America’s reputation by constantly vacillating about what to do in Iran and by fraying U.S. alliances with countries that could help.” Officials who spoke with Politico on the condition of anonymity have made it clear that there is “a sense of despair” in the White House. As one said, “I don’t see a way out of this,” arguing that Trump “fundamentally misunderstands” Iran’s rulers. According to the official, Trump and his aides “have always felt like they can just keep applying pain and Iran will crumble, but the regime is not going to crumble.”

Politico reports that ideas for how to move forward fall into three camps, “all of which seem grounded more in hope than reality.”

One camp is comprised of hawks who advocate for a maximalist military approach, whether that means seizing key islands, expanding bombing missions, or taking other action. They argue “that it’s better to leave Iran as a failed state, even if it falls into civil war, than to leave the regime in charge.” But according to Politico, “Let’s put aside the morality of pushing a country into chaos. There’s no guarantee that more military measures will lead the Islamic Republic to fall. The regime is embedded throughout Iran in ways that the personalist dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq never was.”

Another camp is made of those who advocate restraint. They want de-escalation regardless of what the U.S. has to give up to achieve it, and argue that a deal should be struck even if it means offering major concessions. And if a deal isn’t possible, they assert that the U.S. should just “cut our losses.” But as Politico warns, “The danger is that this could lead to the emboldened Iran the hawks fear — one even more likely to partner with China and Russia and sow terror that ultimately could reach America.”

The third camp falls in the middle, arguing for “the U.S. to maintain its blockade on Iranian sea traffic. The hope is that such a move, along with existing and new sanctions, will grind down Iran’s economy until the regime gives into U.S. demands or is ousted by its own citizens.” But according to Politico, “Iran’s breaking point may be more difficult to calculate than many in this group think. As the U.S. official familiar with the administration’s Middle East strategy noted, with more than a little frustration: ‘The U.S. government has always, going back decades, assessed that Iran’s economy is on the brink of collapse.’”

“The echoes of Iraq make the situation in Iran even more maddening to foreign policy practitioners,” writes Politico. “Once again, the U.S. is dealing with a bitter Middle Eastern adversary; the fear of weapons of mass destruction; a U.S. president willing to take astonishing risks; and an administration that didn’t think far enough ahead.”

“Like Iraq,” said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran analyst with the Brookings Institution in Washington, “this is a predicament of our own making and one that should have been anticipated and that could have been mitigated with better informed planning.”

Politico is not optimistic about Trump’s chances of ending the war, concluding, “It may require a new U.S. president for Washington to come to terms with Tehran. Iran analysts, some of whom are in touch with regime officials, tell me that Tehran appears to believe that Trump isn’t interested in a serious peace pact and can’t be trusted to uphold one anyway. Whoever succeeds Trump, then, will have an extraordinary mess on their hands, but also an extraordinary opportunity to show global leadership.”

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump’s trapped: Appeasing most Americans will cost him Evangelicals

The American war on Iran has quickly become one of the most unpopular wars in United States history. At the beginning of March 2026, when the war started, 46 per cent of Americans opposed the conflict, according to pollster Nate Silver’s aggregator of polling data. Now that number has risen to 57 per cent.

As a result, U.S. President Donald Trump is in urgent need of reliable support for the war effort. A group known as Christian Zionists consistently shows strong backing for his military actions.

Foremost among these supporters are those who gathered for the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) annual conference recently held in Washington, D.C.

Led by the firebrand pastor John Hagee, CUFI has established itself as one of the most powerful lobbying groups within the Republican Party. With a membership of 10 million, it stands as one of Trump’s most reliable bases of support, particularly in terms of his war efforts.

At the recent conference attended by thousands of fervent supporters of close American-Israeli ties, as well as the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Hagee opened the conference’s night to honour Israel event with the following statement about the Iranian regime:

“The issue is whether a regime that sponsors terror and threatens Israel should be permitted to exist… Israel has the right to stop a nuclear sword from being placed over the neck of the Jewish people.”

Dispensationalists, evangelicals

The doctoral project of one of the authors of this article, Jason Piché, focuses on Christian Zionism, dispensationalism and their impact on U.S. foreign policy. Dispensations are seen as distinct periods in history, believed to be ordained by God to govern and organize the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism functions both as a method for interpreting the Bible and as a framework for understanding its history.

Co-author André Gagné’s 2024 book American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare and End Times addresses the role of American evangelicals in U.S. politics.

Christian organizations like CUFI exist solely to fervently support Israel. Yet Christian Zionism has been a crucial aspect of some American Protestant groups since the late 19th century, and its influence has only increased since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

Christian Zionism began in tandem with a theological idea known as premillennial dispensationalism in the mid-19th century.

During a tour of the U.S., Bible scholar John Nelson Darby promoted the belief that God had divided the history of the world into seven dispensations. The final dispensation, according to Darby, would see the return of Jesus Christ and the beginning of his millennial reign.

Darby believed that Jewish people would play a crucial role in this final dispensation, as Jesus’s return could only occur if the Jews reclaimed their traditional homeland in Palestine and built a Third Temple.

Christian Zionists and dispensationalists have therefore become strong supporters of the state of Israel, viewing its security as being a fundamental aspect of their theology. As a result, they support joint Israeli-U.S. military operations against Iran and believe that America should take steps to promote Israeli interests in the region.

Christian Zionism and U.S. foreign policy

Trump recently announced that negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran have resumed, which initially led to some pause in hostilities between the two countries. Now, Trump says the U.S. is only “semi-negotiating” with Iran.

For his Christian Zionist supporters, however, negotiations with the Islamic Republic pose an existential threat to Israel and, consequently, to American interests. During the recent CUFI Israel event, prominent pastor Russell Johnson expressed these concerns and was met with thunderous applause from the crowd:

“That is why I must say to our very own political leaders, finish the job! … Israel should not be restrained from permanently removing an existential threat simply because diplomats want a ceremony and politicians want a headline. If you want America to be strong and to be free, America must remain a friend to Israel.”

For Trump’s most loyal supporters, the American-Israeli war with Iran is seen as an existential struggle that encompasses both material and spiritual dimensions.

They believe the U.S. and Israel must neutralize Iran to guarantee Israel’s long-term security. Such actions not only empower Israel and solidify its position within the dispensationalist framework of the end times, but also benefit America, as they believe it aligns with God’s promise in Genesis 12:3 to bless those who support his covenant people.

Trump’s conundrum

Trump is in a difficult position. With an approval rating of merely 38 per cent, ending the war could alienate his most ardent supporters, while continuing it could further distance him from the majority of Americans who disapprove of the conflict.

His approach of vacillating between largely inconsequential airstrikes, cataclysmic threats and unsuccessful peace negotiations is unlikely to satisfy any of his key constituencies.

What is clear is that if he decides to escalate the war, Christian Zionists will be at the forefront of those supporting him.

André Gagné, Full Professor, Department of Theological Studies, Concordia University and Jason Piché, PhD Student, Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism, Concordia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump’s 'schizophrenic' plan is 'guaranteed to fail': war historian

As President Donald Trump’s “unnecessary war with Iran” drags on, it’s become clear that not only does he have just “one approach” to solving the crisis, but that it is “guaranteed to fail.” This is according to conservative Washington Post columnist and military historian Max Boot, who on Monday detailed how Trump’s “schizophrenic” leadership “undermines his own threats and sabotages his own negotiations.”

“There are many reasons for this quagmire,” writes Boot, “but a significant part of the explanation is President Donald Trump’s schizophrenic approach. He veers between conciliation and confrontation, alternatingly praising Iranian leaders as ‘very rational people’ and denouncing them as ‘scum’ — with metronomic regularity.” Such flip-flops have come to characterize the conflict.

“At least seven times since the start of the war, Trump has vowed to launch devastating attacks before announcing that he was instead giving talks another chance,” Boot explains. “Most recently, on Aug. 1, he wrote on social media that ‘the U.S.A. is locked and loaded and ready to go against the Islamic Republic of Iran, at levels of Military Terror, Strength, and Power not seen since World War II,’ but that he would ‘hold off any attack’ because ‘the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to.’ (Presumably he meant ‘parameters.’)”

According to Boot, Trump is “yo-yoing between dealmaking and warmaking in ways that undercut his chances of success in either endeavor. The Iranians no longer seem to fear him because he has made so many threats he has not carried out. Remember when on July 22 he vowed to ‘bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT’ for every cargo ship that Iran attacked in the Strait of Hormuz? At least three ships have been attacked since then without the U.S. retaliating.”

What’s more, asserts Boot, “While the Iranians don’t fear Trump, they also don’t trust him to make a deal, because he reverses himself so often — and not just on dealing with Tehran. On July 22, for example, the Trump administration announced a nuclear-power deal with Saudi Arabia, only to have Trump add major conditions the next day that Saudi negotiators had not agreed to. The president’s after-the-fact conditions appeared to be a reaction to criticism of the deal from Republican hawks. Likewise, every time Trump veers toward a deal with Iran, he pulls back because of criticism from the same set of hard-liners.”

With all this in mind, Boot asserts that “Trump is his own worst enemy,” arguing, “He needs to decide on a single approach — either confrontation or conciliation — and stick with it consistently for a few months. The conciliatory approach, which builds on the earlier memorandum of understanding, is the smarter option right now despite the difficulty of reaching a deal with Iran’s divided leadership. That would most likely involve a humiliating recognition of some degree of Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.”

While Trump often defaults to confrontation, according to Boot, he “lacks the political support at home to escalate the war or to suffer the economic shocks from a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly the Bab el-Mandeb Strait too. A recent CNN poll found that only 28 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the Iran war. Imagine how much lower support would go if the U.S., which has already lost 18 service members, suffers more casualties. Moreover, the Defense Department is running critically short of the missiles it needs to fight Iran — or any other adversary.”

“The one approach that is guaranteed to fail is the one that Trump is now pursuing,” concludes Boot. “Zagging between war and peace, threats and negotiations, bombastic rhetoric and unctuous outreach. He may think it’s the ‘art of the deal,’ but in fact, as the past five months have shown, it’s simply a formula for an endless and inconclusive conflict — a ‘forever war.’”

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump in 'difficult spot' as losses mount despite his 'bluff': conservative

As President Donald Trump’s approach to the war with Iran shifts into a new phase, a leading conservative magazine warns that he’s in a “difficult spot” because his adversaries know he’s “always bluffing,” and everything he’s tried so far has failed. This is according to the editors at the National Review, who on Thursday expressed skepticism at Trump’s new strategy and warned that he may not have the “patience” to see it through.

“After months of on-again, off-again military strikes and rhetoric ranging from dovish to apocalyptic,” writes the Review, “President Trump has turned to a new strategy for Iran — economic warfare. The U.S. has already been maintaining a naval blockade of Iran, and Trump is taking the strategy further, calling for a D-Day on the Iranian economy. On Monday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced what he portrayed as crippling new sanctions on Iran. ‘Our objective is to sever every economic lifeline that sustains this tyrannical regime until Tehran stands alone,’ he said in describing the new ‘Operation Economic Outcast.’”

But as the Review notes, “It’s not clear, though, what the follow-through will be, which renders the economic D-Day billing inapt; what made D-Day so decisive is that it wasn’t announced in advance, with the details TBD.” And what’s more, Iranians have good reason for their unwillingness to make a deal: they know that “Trump is always bluffing.” And the Review warns that another reason not to oversell the latest strategy came from Bessent himself, who said they would delay the sanctions because they didn’t want“to blow up the global financial system.” So no one knows if these theoretical sanctions will have real teeth at all.

According to the Review, if the administration does stay on its current path, “immediate results” are unlikely as “the ideologically rigid rulers of Iran have proven resilient through decades of sanctions and pounding from the joint might of the U.S. and Israeli air forces, as well as the targeted assassinations of its top leaders. It’s true that the level of economic pain that Trump is seeking to inflict on Iran is more intense than anything the regime has been forced to navigate to this point. Yet, the same basic dynamic applies as during previous rounds of pressure on the regime. The leadership of Iran is radical and more shielded from the effects of a bad economy than are the people whose welfare the regime is indifferent to. Importantly, it still has the guns and, presumably, the willingness to use them during a popular uprising, as it did in last year’s massacres.”

What’s more, Iran could decide to escalate by attacking other Gulf States — as some have warned it may do just before the midterms — and “given that Trump has indicated time and again that he has no appetite for a renewal of large-scale military operations, the decision of how far to go to protect these leading oil producers would put the president in a difficult spot.” So with limited options and all other efforts failing, the Review says the new strategy will require one of Trump’s greatest weaknesses: patience.

“Ultimately, for any strategy of economic warfare to be effective, it will take months or even years of sustained effort — and there is no guarantee that it will work even then,” concludes the Review. “This will be a drain on resources — how long do we want to go without an aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific? — and attention. Trump, whose patience with this conflict has been somewhat surprising to this point, will need to dig in for the long haul.”

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Trump is trapped and has 'no way' out

Iran has successfully throttled the Strait of Hormuz for months now, over the course of which President Donald Trump has declared the vital waterway “open” or otherwise controlled by the U.S. “on at least two dozen occasions.” But regardless of his claims, Trump is now in an “intractable situation” from which he has “no way” out. This is according to journalist Judd Legum, who on Tuesday explained precisely why Trump finds himself between a rock and a hard place.

On Monday, Trump once again declared that “the Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran.” As Legum notes, however, not only is Trump’s claim false, but he made it while simultaneously announcing that the U.S. would undertake an effort to blockade Iranian ships while charging a 20 percent fee on cargo passing through, “but it’s unclear how any of this accomplishes the goal of opening the strait or bringing down the cost of energy. In response to Trump’s announcement, energy prices spiked.”

According to Legum, “This outcome was entirely predictable. Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz as a response to foreign aggression for 50 years. Four months later, the Trump administration still has not identified an effective strategy to reopen the strait. Instead, Trump simply asserts that the Strait of Hormuz is open or under U.S. control — over and over again. Trump shifted abruptly between claiming the strait would open soon, claiming the strait was already open, and claiming the strait was closed only because he decided to close it. At no point were any of these claims accurate.”

While the Trump administration, via the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, announced it “will insure losses up to $40 billion for tankers brave enough to transit the Strait of Hormuz,” this has failed to entice the vast majority of shippers to take the risk. As Legum explains, “Iran has closed or severely restricted traffic in the Strait of Hormuz using a combination of mines, anti-ship missiles, drones, and small high-speed attack boats. The U.S. military has been unable to effectively counter these measures, despite its massive budget and superior capabilities. Iran can create enough uncertainty to dissuade transit through the strait with cheap, haphazard tactics.”

With all this in mind, “Trump now finds himself in an intractable situation. His only apparent avenue for opening the strait is to get Iran to agree to open the strait. But Iran has come to the conclusion that its control of the strait is its best leverage against the United States and other enemies.”

“That leaves Trump with no way to open the Strait of Hormuz and no way to extricate himself from an unpopular war while the strait remains closed,” concludes Legum. “The Trump administration’s failure to anticipate Iran’s response to a U.S. attack was one of the biggest military blunders in recent history. American consumers will likely pay the price for years to come.”

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web