Ignore bombast, Trump faces tactical setback in Iran conflict

Ceasefire masks strategic ambiguity as Iran resists pressure and Trump seeks exit amid rising global concerns

US President Donald Trump had several times claimed during the conflict that the Iran war was almost done, with most of his objectives having been achieved. Yet, he repeatedly threatened to escalate it further with dire consequences if Iran’s leadership failed to agree to a deal by his specified deadlines, which he kept extending despite claiming that the Islamic state was “all gone”. Trump’s rhetoric, alternating between declaring victory and threatening more escalation, was aimed at coercing Iran into submission. But Iran, despite being hit hard, refused to cow down under pressure. What was evident from Trump’s back-and-forth claims and threats was that the US President was looking for a graceful exit through a credible pause in conflict.

The deadlock was broken on day 39 of the war, with a two-week ceasefire. But soon after the announcement of a pause in hostilities, linked to conditions around the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s vital oil waterway, and follow-up talks in Islamabad from April 10 as a step towards long-term peace, the ceasefire became a contest of claims and counterclaims, and competing narratives over who gained the upper hand. Not surprisingly, both sides have portrayed the outcome as a strategic victory, though the substance of their claims diverges significantly. Trump is unequivocal: “Total and complete victory. No question about it.” Yet doubts persist over what exactly has been agreed, who conceded what, and how the deal should be understood and interpreted.

The US administration’s claim that military pressure created leverage, enabling negotiations and opening a path towards a “diplomatic solution”, is a fair argument. But the diplomatic solution was always on the table, which the US ignored by hurriedly opting for an illegal and misguided military conflict that has cost the US a bomb and caused a global energy crisis and economic hardship. Was the war necessary? Apparently, from Trump’s point of view, it was—to force a regime change, which, when it did not happen, led to the war’s objective being changed to degrading Iran’s military capabilities and causing huge damage to its infrastructure, with incessant bombing of its cities, educational institutions, research institutes, hospitals, residential buildings, bridges, and oil complexes.

That Iran did not capitulate, even after suffering huge losses to its leadership figures, civilian lives, and infrastructure, speaks volumes of its resilience and determination to fight back on legal and moral grounds. For Iran, the war was a battle of survival, and it has emerged stronger to bargain hard on its demands. For Trump, it was a campaign to coerce Iran into surrendering to his military might, economic interests, and petrodollar heft in the region. Obviously, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted a different kind of regime in Tehran for Iran to become a different kind of state. But Iran remained defiant even in the face of adversity and wants them to accept it as it is. The war has exposed their delusion that force can impose a compliant regime in Tehran.

In his second term in office, Trump has been unambiguous in his disdain for international law and political morality. The world is witness to that misguided thinking playing out in the Middle East for nearly six weeks without a military or moral victory. It is hard to fathom how much the rules of the UN Charter and the US Constitution have been violated by a democratically elected president who talks peace but wages wars in brazen ways. Iran has been Trump’s prime target since his first term in office, when he imposed crippling sanctions against the Islamic Republic in 2018 with the announcement of the US withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

These sanctions were implemented in waves throughout 2018, targeting Iran’s energy, banking, and shipping sectors, with further sanctions added in 2019 and 2020 as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign.

America’s dislike for the Islamic regime is no secret, though it has no qualms in supporting almost similar authoritarian kingdoms in the Middle East. Iran has long remained defiant to US pressure to wind down its nuclear programme and missile technology, despite the debilitating impact on its economy because of sanctions. Trump chose to go to war with Iran in June last year. It lasted for 10 days but remained unfinished. The second attack on February 28, amid diplomatic negotiations, was obviously aimed at bringing Iran to its knees. It did not work as quickly as Trump expected, in the absence of a clear military strategy. Escalation would have had far-reaching consequences for the US, Iran, and the rest of the Middle East.

Fragile calm prevails after the pause to ‘Operation Epic Fury’. But the relief that the world waited for may be premature because the core challenges remain, with too many unknowns: will the US President live down an embarrassing moment, given his dislike for negative reputation? Will Israel toe the ceasefire line not just in Iran but also in Lebanon, which has been Iran’s demand? Will the world agree to Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, a key condition in Iran’s 10-point peace proposal?

Some analysts feel the ceasefire is likely to hold and may pave the way for a negotiated settlement. Others are even more optimistic because the truce, though fragile, is a much-needed off-ramp the Americans were pushing for over the last few weeks.

In their view, there are several reasons for the US to make the pause work. One, global concerns over oil prices and the state of the global economy. Trump was more concerned about the impact a prolonged war would have on oil, the economy, and financial markets. Two, escalation is a costly option with no guaranteed results. The financial, logistical, and human cost is far too big to pursue it. Three, domestic pressure and a looming mid-term election. The war, according to opinion polls, is very unpopular among the US public; a prolonged conflict would be disastrous for the Republican Party, which currently controls both the Senate and Congress.

The pertinent question is: after nearly six weeks of war, what has Trump achieved in Iran? Control over Hormuz, which was never an issue before the war, has become one of the central points of

dispute and Iran’s trump card to gain leverage.

A L I CHOUGULE