U.S. President Donald Trump looks down as he participates in a call with service members of U.S.military (REUTERS)
Smarter presidents than President Donald Trump have already strategized a war with Iran. Ilan Goldenberg was one of Obama’s officials charged with mapping out a potential war with Iran, should the necessity arise — and the best decision was always to make sure the necessity didn’t arise.
Goldenberg tells Zeteo that he and other war games experts all reached the same five conclusions about war with Iran that Trump somehow managed to kunk.
1. When the regime feels existentially threatened, Iran will escalate
Goldenberg said in most war games, Iran tries to avoid outright war with the U.S. because a full-on war is a massive threat. But if the U.S. jumps the gun and embraces conflict, the regime has no choice but to fight for survival. So of course that means striking U.S. bases, harassing shipping in the Gulf, “activating proxy forces across the region, and targeting oil infrastructure and civilian assets.”
Their goal, said Goldenberg, is always to “impose costs, spike oil prices, and create international pressure on Washington to stop,” said Goldenberg. That Trump was blind to “the most consistent conclusions in the exercises” says plenty about the president and his intelligence team.
2. It is easy to close the Strait of Hormuz. It is hard to reopen it
Years before Trump ambled into the White House the first time, intelligence experts already knew the Strait of Hormuz was both an easy victim and a liability, and once Iran menaced it, it would stay menaced.
“One of the central lessons from these scenarios was always how easy it was for Iran to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz because of its geographic proximity and how much harder it is for the United States to restore confidence and safe passage,” said Goldenberg.
Iran doesn’t even need to shut the strait entirely. Just create enough uncertainty to “scare off shipping and drive up prices.” Meanwhile, Iran can move large amounts of oil to places like China, allowing it to inflict pain while also making a profit.
“When I studied such scenarios and brought in economists and energy experts, we concluded that a major war could send oil prices soaring up to $175-$200 per barrel for a couple of months and leave a lasting risk premium on global markets with prices at $80-$100 long after the fighting stopped,” said Goldenberg.
3. Russia always wins
Goldenberg said all Russia has to do in an Iran/U.S. conflict is sit back and benefit while the U.S. blows its wealth into the sky.
“Higher oil prices benefit Russia as a major exporter. Pressure to stabilize global markets eases sanctions on Russian energy sales. And American attention, military resources, and political bandwidth that might otherwise go toward supporting Ukraine are redirected to the Middle East,” said Goldenberg.
4. The aftermath is incredibly costly
For all of Trump’s criticism of the War in Iraq he somehow forgot that what comes after is a long, infuriating price tag. After a full-scale war, Goldenberg and others determined that the United States would face “the prospect of containing a wounded but still dangerous Iran for years.”
“Think of Iraq in the 1990s after the first Gulf War: a hostile regime that survived and required an expensive, long-term American military commitment to keep boxed in,” said Goldenberg. “The difference is that today the United States does not have the same freedom of action as the only global superpower that it had in the 1990s. China is a major competitor. Russia remains a serious threat. We do not have the luxury of getting bogged down again in a prolonged Middle East containment mission.”
And then, finally, there is 5. “Buying time was always the best option
What war games ultimately showed Goldenberg and other experts is that when it comes to Iran, all the options are bad, but war is the worst.
The better alternative is always to “contain, deter, pressure, negotiate, and wait for 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to die and see if a more pragmatic or moderate leadership followed.”
But that’s not what Trump did, said Goldenberg. Instead, Trump dismantled Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement with Iran. Also — prior to Trump’s attack on Iranian civilians (many of them children) — there had been options to intensify sanctions to exploit the regime’s domestic dissatisfaction to hasten it’s collapse from within.
Ultimately, “there are no real winners in such a war – except, perhaps, Vladimir Putin,” said Goldenberg. “That is why, for decades, presidents of both parties listened to experts and tried to avoid it until Trump ended all of that.”
