Why would Trump strike Iran? How lack of clarity imperils a diplomatic deal.
-
Howard LaFranchi Staff writer
| Washington
Will he or won鈥檛 he?
For weeks, Washington, Middle East capitals, and indeed many points beyond have been gripped with speculation over whether President Donald Trump would attack Iran 鈥� a move many analysts and some advisers in Mr. Trump鈥檚 inner circle have warned could spark a broader war.
At the same time, another question has remained largely unanswered concerning the president鈥檚 potential recourse to a military intervention against the Islamic Republic: Why would he?
Why We Wrote This
President Donald Trump鈥檚 brief mention of Iran in his State of the Union address was still short of a complete argument for how and why striking Iran, which would risk a wider Middle East conflict, would further U.S. interests.
Now, as indirect talks between the United States and Iran are set to resume in Geneva on Thursday, against the backdrop of the largest U.S. armada assembled in the Middle East since the Iraq War, the answer to the 鈥渨hy鈥� question remains incomplete at best.
Mr. Trump鈥檚 recent comments on Iran and those of some of his advisers have suggested four different objectives that could be motivating U.S. policy, numerous U.S.-Iran analysts say. Chief among them is Iran鈥檚 nuclear program and eliminating any possibility of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Other objectives the president is considering, comments suggest, are taking out Iran鈥檚 ballistic missile arsenal and production capabilities; riding to the rescue of Iran鈥檚 anti-regime protesters, as Mr. Trump pledged in January; weakening Iran鈥檚 support for its regional proxies; and, lastly, some form of regime change.
The president dedicated only a few lines of his State of the Union address Tuesday to Iran, but he did touch on some of these potential goals underpinning his next steps.
鈥淢y preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy,鈥� Mr. Trump said, 鈥渂ut I will never allow the world鈥檚 number one sponsor of terrorism to have a nuclear weapon. Can鈥檛 let that happen.鈥�
Referring to what he鈥檚 looking for in the ongoing negotiations, he said, 鈥淲e haven鈥檛 heard the secret words: 鈥榃e [Iran] will never have a nuclear weapon.鈥欌��
Touching on other factors that could be driving administration deliberations, the president cited his disdain for a regime 鈥渢hat has killed at least 32,000 protesters,鈥� as well as a missile stockpile 鈥渢hat can threaten Europe and our bases overseas.鈥� (Rights groups monitoring the recent Iranian unrest say the number of dead confirmed so far is at least 7,000, which would still make the crackdown the regime鈥檚 deadliest.)
Emboldened, yet hesitating
For many critics and analysts, that hardly explains why the United States would risk a broader and unpredictable war in the Middle East.
In the absence of a clear case for how striking Iran would further U.S. interests, some analysts say the president appears to be emboldened to take military action by what he has characterized as recent successes. First, the airstrikes last June against Iranian nuclear facilities, and then the January special-forces operation that seized Venezuelan leader Nicol谩s Maduro.
鈥淭rump鈥檚 the guy in the casino who鈥檚 on a roll. He鈥檚 just won a bunch of money at the Venezuela craps table, and he hasn鈥檛 forgotten his Iran winnings from June,鈥� says Rosemary Kelanic, an expert in energy security and U.S. grand strategy at Defense Priorities, a Washington think tank advocating restraint in U.S. foreign policy.
鈥淣ow he鈥檚 at the table again,鈥� she adds, 鈥渨ith a lot of chips and some congressional hawks and [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu whispering in his ear that Iran is weak so it鈥檚 his opportunity to go big.鈥�
She says the lack of clarity on just what President Trump鈥檚 objectives are can make getting the deal he says he prefers more difficult. 鈥淚f the Iranians are unclear if Trump really wants a deal, but suspect he might be bent on regime change, then there鈥檚 no incentive for Iran to go for concessions,鈥� she says.
Others say the president appears to be leaning toward a limited military strike that is beyond a token signal but short of full regime change. Nuclear sites would be targeted again, but this time missile infrastructure and government power centers as well, to convince the Iranians to get serious about negotiations. Mr. Trump confirmed last week he is indeed considering such an option.
鈥淲hat President Trump has on the table seems to be a 鈥榙ecapitation strike鈥� that would be designed to target a range of significant military infrastructure and Iran鈥檚 leadership so that the U.S. can start negotiating seriously in a new reality and with a new successor leadership,鈥� says Arash Reisinezhad, a visiting assistant professor at Tufts University鈥檚 Fletcher School in Medford, Mass.
鈥淪o what I see is a strategy of three steps,鈥� he says, adding, 鈥淭he negotiations that are taking place, then the decapitation strikes, and then a return to serious negotiations鈥� with a successor set of Iranian powers.
鈥淚ran gets a vote鈥�
Such an approach might be 鈥渕ore realistic than complete regime change,鈥� Dr. Reisinezhad says, 鈥渂ut it would still be very risky 鈥� which explains why Mr. Trump is hesitating.鈥�
He says Iran could be expected to immediately strike back at U.S. interests in the region, including military bases, energy installations, and Israel.
Others agree the 鈥渟trike to negotiate鈥� option is fraught with danger.
鈥淭he theory that a round of targeted strikes can lead to concessions from Iran is completely wrong,鈥� says Dr. Kelanic. 鈥淚ran gets a vote in this, and they鈥檝e signaled every way they can that they are going to respond hard to any attacks. If Trump opts for any attack,鈥� she adds, 鈥渁ny deal is going to be off the table.鈥�
Some analysts suspect that Mr. Trump鈥檚 overriding motivation is his assurances to the American public as far back as his 2016 presidential campaign that he could deliver a much better deal with Iran than President Obama鈥檚 2015 nuclear deal 鈥� which he withdrew from in 2018. Going to war with Iran instead would sully his self-image as a greater dealmaker than any previous president, they say.
For Dr. Reisinezhad, an unpredictable military engagement with Iran also risks seriously undermining the administration鈥檚 broader national security interests, as laid out in last month鈥檚 National Security Strategy.
鈥淭he U.S. under this administration has just said it鈥檚 most important focus should be Taiwan and the South China Sea, as well as the Western Hemisphere,鈥� he says. 鈥淚f the U.S. gets stuck in the Middle East and has to turn away from Asia,鈥� he adds, 鈥渢hat鈥檚 going to be good for China, and for Russia.鈥�
