US President Donald Trump often tells Ukraine it holds no cards in its war of attrition with Russia. But the US president now faces growing questions about the strength of his own hand in the conflict with Iran.
On the surface, the US – with more than three times Iran’s population and the world’s most formidable military and economy – enjoys an overwhelming advantage in the balance of power. Add Israel’s battle-hardened military and its all-seeing intelligence apparatus, and the fight appears lopsided.
Yet Iran has turned its few pockets of strength into painful pressure points for the US while forcing its own repressed population to absorb immense punishment. In doing so, it has not only survived but, some analysts argue, seized the strategic initiative.
One month in, the war has become a contest of leverage. Trump may possess greater power, but securing an unequivocal victory would probably require him to accept levels of political and economic damage he is reluctant to bear, reports CNN.
Iran cannot defeat the US and Israel, but it played its ultimate trump card by closing the Strait of Hormuz – a vital choke point for energy exports – thereby holding the global economy hostage and mounting political costs for Washington.
A telling exchange at a White House briefing on Monday laid bare the strategic vulnerability undermining America’s military superiority.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt cited Iran’s willingness to allow an additional 20 tankers to sail through the Strait in the coming days as a win for “the president’s diplomacy.” Yet the optics remain jarring: the US, as the superior power, should not find itself negotiating such concessions.
That fleet of 20 tankers pales against the daily average of well over 100 vessels passing through before the war, according to UN Trade and Development data. Were it not for the conflict, the Strait would be open. So, in Leavitt’s framing, Trump’s first apparent diplomatic victory merely undoes a fraction of the disruption his own actions caused.
The uncomfortable reality for Trump is that the US undoubtedly possesses the military might to reopen the Strait. But sending the US Navy through would hand Iran a propaganda victory if it struck – or even sank – an American vessel. He would likely also need to deploy ground troops to push back Iranian forces, raising the spectre of US combat deaths that could batter his already fragile political standing.
The same constraints apply to Trump’s other options as he contemplates seizing the nerve centre of Iran’s oil exports on Kharg Island in the northern Persian Gulf. He told the Financial Times on Sunday that he might like to seize Iran’s oil.
Such a move could strangle the Iranian economy. But there is no guarantee it would force the regime to capitulate rather than lash out. It would also give Tehran even less incentive to loosen its grip on the Strait of Hormuz.
As he seeks to strengthen his own position, Trump claims productive diplomacy is unfolding behind the scenes with Iran, despite Tehran’s denials that direct talks are under way. At the same time, he is threatening unprecedented violence to bring the Iranians to the table.
The arrival of thousands of US Marines in the region – along with the deployment of more than 1,000 airborne troops – has convinced some analysts that Trump’s patience will run out, prompting him to order US forces to take Kharg Island or islands in the Strait.
“That’s very far from an off-ramp. That looks like almost certainly like a period of escalation is coming,” Ian Bremmer, president and founder of the Eurasia Group, said on CNN News Central on Monday.
Trump had earlier warned that if Iran did not strike a deal, he would weaponise America’s military advantage by “completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinisation plants).”
Certainly, the US military could carry out such strikes. But reprisal attacks by Iran on similar targets in the territory of Washington’s Gulf allies would be all but inevitable. Global markets would descend into meltdown.
The already-high risk of a worldwide recession would increase. And the prospect of bombing desalination plants – vital for sustaining life in the parched desert conditions of the Gulf – prompted reporters to question Leavitt over whether Trump could be committing a war crime.
Washington does hold one significant card it has yet to play. It retains the capacity eventually to lift sanctions on Iranian oil exports and multiple sectors of the economy. The Islamic Republic has been brought to its knees by its inability to sell oil through normal channels.
The latest uprising against the regime – brutally suppressed by security forces – was fuelled in part by this deprivation. One potential US tactic might be to choke off Iran’s oil exports. But this could hurt Trump as much as it hurts Tehran.
That remarkable conundrum came into sharp focus earlier this month when the administration took the counterintuitive step of lifting sanctions on Iranian ships at sea, so spooked was it by spiralling oil prices.
Otherwise, the White House offers Iran little to sweeten its diplomatic overtures.
Its 15-point list of demands for a peace deal contains several conditions Tehran would never accept – including strict curbs on its missile programmes and an unconditional loosening of its grip on the Strait.
And the administration remains determined to view the conflict through the narrowest of military lenses.
Its daily updating of a tally of attacks on Iranian targets – which reached 11,000 on Monday – risks drawing comparisons with the Vietnam War body counts that once obscured the full, damaging span of that conflict.
“It’s no surprise that we are seeing the remaining elements of the regime become increasingly eager to end the destruction and come to the negotiating table while they still can,” Leavitt told reporters on Monday.
That summation of the war appears to bear little relation to reality.
Iran may not enjoy the upper hand militarily, but its closure of the Strait gives it disproportionate power.
That move has already triggered economic and fuel crises as far afield as Africa and Asia. Many more weeks of disrupted maritime traffic could unleash an economic cataclysm – and in turn impose fierce domestic political costs on Trump.
Iran’s prolongation of the war is also inflicting huge consequences on its US-allied Gulf neighbours as they seek to transform their carbon-based economies by building global tourism, transit and sporting hubs.
US and Israel are probably right that they have destroyed most of Iran’s drone and missile capacity. But Tehran needs only to lob a few projectiles into the Strait, or into Gulf cityscapes, to impose a disproportionate economic cost.
Iran’s leverage also appears to grow with time. The longer the war continues, the higher the costs for the president, meaning he might consider a deal that casts him more as a supplicant than a strongman.
Still, the regime’s long-term survival would require sanctions to be lifted.
And the clock ticks on Trump’s tolerance. If genuine diplomacy does not take place soon, he may be pushed inexorably towards an escalation that makes it impossible for him to step back and accept a settlement – whatever the costs.
“Once he loses that capability, his incentives for an off-ramp, compared to the incentives for doubling down, will then shift again in the wrong direction,” said Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
“So, the Iranians need to recognise that they don’t have all the time on their side, even though they probably have more time on their side than Trump does.”
Ultimately, leverage in a war holds value only if it delivers a strategic victory. Both the US and Iran maintain advantages that could prove decisive. But each must play cards carefully. A failure by either to offer the other a way out could lead them – and the world – towards catastrophe.
