Our War with Iran.

            There were reasonable arguments both for and against war with Iran.[1]  President Donald Trump chose war.  Trump has not offered a clear and persuasive argument for the war.  As is his wont, he has put forth multiple justifications wrapped in clouds of hyperbole.  It has been the same with his evaluations of how the war is progressing.[2] 

The war started well: a decapitation offensive killed much of the senior military, security, and political leadership; the air defenses were largely degraded; ballistic missiles, their launchers, and weapons stockpiles were hit very hard; and the Iranian Navy (such as it was) has been largely destroyed. 

Then, to the apparent surprise of President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hogwallop, Iran did not surrender.[3]  Pre-war commentary often said that the original widespread revolutionary fervor among Iranians had long since waned.  Now, the ranks of the government were supposed to be filled with careerists mimicking enthusiasm in order to get and keep jobs.  Surely, someone would step up to say “enough is enough!”  This evaluation may have misread the situation.[4]  Rather like the “Black Knight” in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” Iran refused to concede defeat.  It kept on launching such missiles and drones as it still possessed at its oil-producing neighbors.  It declared the Straits of Hormuz closed.  Perhaps they can’t make good on that decree, but who wants to be on an oil tanker or natural gas container ship if they can?  So, the Strait is mostly closed. 

A two-week cease-fire has been agreed.  The terms are murky and disputed.  In all likelihood, the Iranian government is lying.  In the past, they have denounced as forgeries documents that they signed days before.  Peace-talks were held, but failed.  Now the United States has blockaded Iranian shipping.  Other preparations are undoubtedly underway as the cease-fire clock ticks down.  These preparations may even involve “boots on the ground.” 

            This is not an excuse for quitting on the war that has begun.  Better to see it through.  If we quit now, take some phony deal just to have an “off-ramp,” bad things will happen. 

            We will have run through a lot of our limited stock of munitions for absolutely no gain.  We will be less ready for whatever fight comes next. 

            Our enemies and our friends will see our weakness.  That weakness is in military power, but also in will.  Does anyone really want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?  Does anyone really want China to seize Taiwan?  Does anyone really want Russia to defeat Ukraine?  Does anyone really want ALL of these things to happen, pretty much simultaneously? 

            Donald Trump started this war on his own, but he can’t be allowed to end it short of victory.  This is America’s war; this is OUR war. 


[1] See: The Argument for War with Iran. | waroftheworldblog ; and The Argument Against War with Iran. | waroftheworldblog 

[2] Not to excuse Trump’s “style,” but after ten years of this kind of thing, you’d think people would accept that it’s how he talks.  Discount the guff and focus on what is consistent.  Counting up all the times that he has over-stated, offended, or lied doesn’t get us anywhere.  Conservative commentators have argued that Progressives often confuse rhetoric with reality.  Acting like Trump is no solution to Trump. 

[3] Neither did Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan when they found themselves in an even worse situation in 1945. 

[4] Possibly, such a misreading could have been based on psychological “projection.” 

Decisions.

            “War is pure Hell.  You cannot refine it.”—William Tecumseh Sherman.  Peace in the Russo-Ukraine war is desirable.  Under the right terms. 

Under what terms is “peace” with Russia desirable for Ukraine?  Should Ukraine give up the territory that Russia already holds in exchange for peace?[1]  Should they try to keep fighting with whatever aid the European Union can provide, even if the United States does a bunk?  Should they try to extract commitments for the West in exchange for ceding territory to Russia and halting the fighting?  Such commitments might involve reconstruction aid, modern arms for a post-war Ukrainian military, and membership in the European Union and NATO.  What if Russia’s terms include demands for Ukraine’s “neutralization” and disarmament so as not to “threaten” Russia in the future? 

Under what terms is peace desirable for Russia?  It would take extreme pressure to make Russia give up its territorial gains.  Vladimir Putin’s long-term goal appears to be the reassembly of the Soviet Union.  Any peace that leaves Ukraine functionally independent marks a defeat.  In terms of manpower, Russia has a big edge.  At the moment, it profits from an alliance of convenience with China, North Korea, and Iran.  Putin may calculate that he can keep the pressure on Ukraine until the front lines cave in.  If that happens, Russia could be in a position to take much more than anyone else is contemplating at this moment. 

Under what conditions is peace desirable for the United States?  This question involves asking other questions.  First, where does Ukraine figure in America’s global strategy?  The United States faces multiple dangers simultaneously.  The Far East is the most important of these challenges.  Then there is the Middle East.  The key concerns here are the oil, Iran’s forward policy, and Israel.  Then there’s Europe.  Putin’s ambitions pose an eventual danger to the former “satellite states” and to the Baltic countries.  How soon would it become an actual danger?  Russia’s attack on Ukraine has prompted a revival and expansion of NATO.  Putin’s “allies” all have a strong interest in keeping the eyes of the world focused on Ukraine (and Gaza).[2]  At the same time, a consciousness of danger is poking the Europeans to look to their own defenses.  This will take time to develop. 

Second, to what extent can the United States make good its global commitments?  It operates from a weakened position compared to the past.  The United States military’s command structure has ossified, the defense industrial base has eroded for decades, and the human manpower base is in poor shape.[3]  It is by no means guaranteed that the United States can fight and win multiple simultaneous wars.  Rearmament is going to take time and cost money even IF the political will exists to rearm. 

            What’s best for Ukraine?  Only they can decide. 

            What’s best for the United States?  Only they can decide. 

            What’s best for Russia?  Only Putin can decide. 

            Where, if at all, do those decisions overlap? 


[1] See: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine – Russo-Ukrainian War – Wikipedia 

[2] Someone once observed that Bismarck was the kind of guy who would set fire to your barn so that he could sleep through the night. 

[3] The country has a high rate of obesity, with attendant illnesses.  Wegovy in boot camp?