Military Force Policy: Did It Work with Iran?

The world awaits the signing of an agreement or a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran. President Donald Trump’s policy of negotiating with the Iranians under threat of military strikes appears to have succeeded despite Iranian claims of victory and preparations for celebration. The problem with Trump is that he doesn’t believe in a policy of silence, quite the opposite. This has put Tehran in an embarrassing position both regionally and domestically.

Meanwhile, heated remarks and phone calls between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu featured sharp rhetoric and threats, with Trump ordering Netanyahu’s government to halt the recent exchange of military attacks on Iran. As Trump noted, these attacks threatened an imminent agreement with Iran that was close to being finalized within two or three days. Trump has made these remarks repeatedly since the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran began.

The strange paradox in the recent clash between Tel Aviv and Tehran is that Iran initiated the military strikes, marking a notable development in this military conflict. Iran attributed its actions to intense Israeli attacks on the southern suburbs of Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold. Ironically, one of the demands from the U.S. and its allies for ending the war is that Iran halt support for its proxies in the Arab region, chiefly Hezbollah. Iran’s strike against Israel upends the usual equation, where Tehran waits for its sectarian proxies to unify fronts in the event of an attack on Iran. Now, Iran is intervening with a military strike to defend its key ally, Hezbollah.

Trump ordered both sides to halt the skirmishes. Some doubted Iran would comply. However, many were mistaken. Iran and its Revolutionary Guard swiftly complied with the U.S. directive. Netanyahu attempted to stall, but he is dealing with a U.S. president who uses the media and his social media site to apply political pressure on allies, primarily Israel.

Does the Trump administration’s anger over such skirmishes between Iran and Israel reflect domestic pressures faced by the U.S. administration from the Democratic Party and certain left-leaning liberal media outlets? These groups have begun weaving a narrative similar to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which resulted in a humiliating defeat. They also draw parallels to the U.S. experience in Afghanistan. Trump frequently highlights the disgraceful and chaotic American withdrawal there, leaving behind massive quantities of weapons.

Another factor creating pressure for Trump is that the U.S. is co-hosting the World Cup with Canada and Mexico. It would damage the U.S. image globally to enter a war while hosting this sporting event, whose highest goals are fair competition, friendship and brotherhood among nations. The U.S. administration may be stalling and delaying agreements between the two sides until the conclusion of this global competition.

Trump believes that time is not in his favor in his conflict with Iran due to these issues. Conversely, Iran does not care about time and is exploiting it to its fullest advantage. This is especially true since the Iranian domestic front cannot mobilize during an external war waged against the country.

Some view Iran’s recent attack on Israel not as a sign of strength, but as a reflection of the Iranian economic system’s collapse, particularly under the choking economic blockade imposed by U.S. warships. Tehran’s desperate pursuit of its billions in assets may reflect the dire economic situation internally. This is what the regime fears, rather than U.S.-Israeli military strikes without ground intervention.

The period of sanctions on Iraq before the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime serves as a lesson. While populations pay the price of economic sanctions, such measures do not topple regimes built on ideologies that prepare for war and military conflict.