Four week ago U.S. President Donald Trump threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran with another attack over its nuclear program.
It was a mistake because, as I explained, Iran is no easy target:
Iran however is also ready. It has increased its missile forces. It has promised to use it against U.S. positions in the Middle East and against Israel in retaliation to any attack. It has also promised to close the Strait of Hormuz. A large part of the global oil supply is flowing through it. A selective closure, which would for example allow tankers destined for China to pass, is also a possibility. But even a partial prolonged closure would suddenly increase oil and gas prices all over the world. Republican chances to win in the mid-term elections would decrease.
Major Arab U.S. allies in the Middle East have rejected to take part in any adventure against Iran. Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Qatar have explicitly stated that they will not allow U.S. operations against Iran from or through their territory.
…
The arising conflict is unlikely to be as short as the recent 12 day campaign. It could easily escalate into attritional warfare. …What Trump wants is another symbolic victory. He has started, like usual, with a gigantic threat in the hope to receive a minor concession that will allow him to chicken out. I doubt that Iran is in the mood to give him whatever he is asking for.
Since then the U.S. has beefed up its air defenses in the area and doubled the number of air-attack forces in the Middle East.
But this is still, says a U.S. military think-tank, far from enough to sustain a campaign:
The force is capable of punitive strikes on Iran and protection of U.S. allies and partners in the region. However, it lacks Marines, special operations forces (SOF) for raids or ground operations, and the logistics for an extended air campaign.
…
- The current force level is comparable to that used in Operation Desert Fox, which entailed four days of long-range punitive strikes. …
- The large number of cargo aircraft (C-17s and C-5Ms) and tankers (KC-135s and KC-46As) moving to the Middle East does not indicate any deployment of ground forces. …
- U.S. forces lack special operations and ground units needed to conduct raids or operations ashore. …
- The available forces are also insufficient for regime change beyond limited targeted strikes. …
- Finally, there are not enough forces for an extended, multi-week air campaign. That would require a substantial logistical buildup, which is possible but would take additional time. …
Others analysts agree with that take (archived):
Israeli intelligence has concluded that even with the imminent arrival of the USS Gerald R Ford later this week, the US has military capacity to sustain just a four to five day intense aerial assault, or a week of lower-intensity strikes, an Israeli intelligence official told the FT.
Iran, in contrast to the U.S., is able to fight for a long time and especially to block the Strait of Hormuz, with global economic consequences, for several months.
The build up of U.S. forces over the last month thus has not changed the strategic balance.
Iran has the means to fight a long war in its near abroad while the U.S. depends on a logistic train that takes months to deliver.
The White House, when ordering the build-up, was falsely believing that Iran would fold under pressure:
Trump’s special envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, told Fox News over the weekend that the president is “curious” why Iran hasn’t “capitulated” to U.S. demands, given the looming threat of a military attack.
“Why, under this pressure, with the amount of sea power and naval power over there, why haven’t they come to us and said, ‘We profess we don’t want a weapon, so here’s what we’re prepared to do?’ And, yet, it’s sort of hard to get them to that place,” he said.
Had Witkoff and Trump bothered to learn a bit about the five thousand year old glorious history of Iran they would have known that threatening its people does not work:
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded on social media, saying: “Curious to know why we do not capitulate? Because we are Iranian.”
Trump’s bluff has been called. He is now in the inconvenient situation of having to back down, and come under criticism from the Zionist lobby, or to ruin his presidency by attacking Iran.
By leaking to the Washington Post the U.S. military is offering him an off-ramp (archived):
As the Trump administration weighs an attack on Iran, the Pentagon’s top general has cautioned President Donald Trump and other officials that shortfalls in critical munitions and a lack of support from allies will add significant risk to the operation and to U.S. personnel, according to people familiar with internal discussions.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed his concerns at a White House meeting last week with Trump and his top aides, these people said, cautioning that any major operation against Iran will face challenges because the U.S. munitions stockpile has been significantly depleted by Washington’s ongoing defense of Israel and support for Ukraine. …
The lack of good military options is why Trump dithers with the decision to wage another war on Iran.
But the clock is running. Keeping a large expedition force for months on station in the Middle East does cost a lot of money and will deteriorate its capabilities.
Despite the U.S. build-up of forces the basic strategic situation is unchanged from where it was four weeks ago:
That leaves [Trump] the choice to chicken out without winning or to bet the house and his presidency on escalation.
May he chose wisely.