Unless Donald Trump finds a way out of his box on Iran, history may come to regard his choice to
wage war as a presidency-defining error.
But he has so far avoided one potential dire mistake: massively escalating the conflict past his capacity to control it.
History shows that presidents who intensify wars in pursuit of a way out, or to protect their own prestige or America’s reputation, descend a slippery slope. In Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, they often did so reluctantly, in wars that could no longer be won.
Not for the first time, Trump finds himself at a three-way intersection in a war now being driven by Iran’s refusal to surrender or seriously negotiate.
If diplomacy keeps failing, is he willing to perpetually extend the so-far inconclusive campaign of air strikes, fragile ceasefires, and US and Iranian maritime blockades that rumbles on but doesn’t end the war?
Or does he step up the US offensive by lifting his own limits and going beyond mostly military targets to take out Iranian civilian and infrastructure assets — crossing the Rubicon into the use of ground troops in limited operations?
The third option would be deeply painful: accepting that he, and the United States, would be best served by cutting losses and walking away from the conflict with his major goals unresolved.
Each question serves up unpalatable political and strategic answers, which explains why he’s still stuck in a war he can’t afford to win and can’t afford to lose. It’s a measure of the US predicament that the Pentagon sent a request to a group of military analysts for new ideas on how to punish Iran, according to an exclusive CNN report
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/08/04/politics/trump-iran-war-strait-of-hormuz?
Comments
Post a Comment