A vocal group of Washington hawks wants President Trump to order one more round of strikes on Iran, reopen the Strait of Hormuz by force if necessary, declare victory, and walk away. Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen and Fox News analyst General Jack Keane are among the most prominent voices making this case, but their argument doesn’t hold up.
Read more Mamdani Heckled and Booed Off Stage at NYPD Event on Staten Island
Thiessen, for instance, has argued Trump should launch a final push against Iran’s remaining military targets, claiming the U.S. was only about 14 days from completely destroying Iran’s military capabilities and that any peace deal would simply give Tehran a veto over America’s ability to declare victory. He has also faulted the June Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Vice President Vance helped negotiate for leaving the war unresolved, in a Washington Post column titled “Trump’s Iran strategy is working. His vice president’s isn’t.”
But their finish-the-job argument raises an obvious question: why would the Iranian regime stop its attacks after one more U.S. military campaign, when the fanatics running the country appear willing to burn it down rather than fold? Why believe two more weeks of bombing will destroy all 1,000 of Iran’s remaining missiles? And if the U.S. calls off the war after a two-week campaign, isn’t it more likely that Iran simply resumes firing at its neighbors? What’s the plan then?
Thiessen and Keane are also in no hurry to end the Iran war. They don’t seem concerned with Trump’s promise to end it quickly or how a prolonged conflict will affect the November midterms.
Events this week further undercut their case. Trump was reportedly on the verge of ordering what he called a massive attack on Iran—by his own description, harder than any U.S. strike since World War II—before calling it off at the request of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and, according to Trump, Iran. Rather than “finish the job,” Trump gave Tehran a last chance to reach a deal before a “decapitation” attack. It is hard to imagine this is the outcome the hawks were hoping for.
Although Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed they are not engaged in diplomacy with the U.S., talks with Iran through intermediaries have been underway, and Trump claims a deal is close. In addition, Iranian officials threatened neighboring states over the past several days that they will attack all of them if the U.S. launches a new attack instead of seeking a negotiated end to the war, suggesting that despite its denials, Tehran wants a diplomatic solution and is trying to find a way to stave off Trump’s promised decapitation attack.
This threat to attack regional states if Trump does not pursue diplomacy may represent Iran “blinking” in the face of U.S. force—a slow creep toward a negotiated exit, which cuts against the case Thiessen and Keane have been making for more attacks without diplomacy.
Thiessen is right that the MOU was a problematic deal, especially the $300 billion reconstruction fund. But it was also a necessary one, coming after Trump had already destroyed Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The MOU had the potential to bring an end to the war. Maybe a long shot, but still worth trying.
Some hawks claim Iran’s nuclear weapons program has not been fully destroyed and insist the war must continue until near-weapons-grade enriched uranium is excavated and removed and until Pickaxe Mountain—a suspected, deeply buried nuclear site—is destroyed. This argument is mistaken. The massive damage already inflicted on Iran’s nuclear program—including the destruction of critical facilities needed to produce nuclear weapons fuel, the loss of specialized equipment smuggled into the country over decades, and the deaths of key nuclear personnel and scientists—means that even if some residual elements of the program survived, reconstituting it would require billions of dollars and decades.
Since Trump has already succeeded in his primary objective for the war—stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb—the wiser course now is the credible threat of force paired with diplomacy through America’s Gulf allies. More force may ultimately prove necessary, but only if diplomacy fails and only when coordinated with these allies. Should Trump conclude that talks have reached a dead end, a narrowly targeted, allied-coordinated strike combined with sustained economic pressure would better serve American interests than an open-ended bombing campaign that punishes ordinary Iranians, hardens the fanaticism of Iran’s leadership, and leaves the regime’s resolve intact.
Declaring victory after one final barrage might satisfy Washington pundits. It won’t change the regime’s ideology or its willingness to absorb punishment while waiting out the U.S. political cycle.
In addition, two more weeks of U.S. military strikes may open the door wider for Russia and China to meddle in this conflict by evading sanctions and providing weapons and technical support.
In the end, time may be on Trump’s side. Unlike a bombing campaign, which a regime bent on defiance can frame as martyrdom, economic strangulation threatens something much harder to survive: the regime’s ability to pay the soldiers and police who keep it in power. The U.S. naval blockade is estimated to be costing Iran roughly $400 million a day in lost oil revenue, a devastating blow to an economy that was already in dire shape before the war began. Sustained over months, that kind of pressure could make it impossible for the regime to continue governing, including paying its military and security forces. That slow economic strangulation, not another two weeks of bombing, may prove to be Trump’s strongest card.
Read more Federal Aviation Officials Investigate Safety Incident Involving Marine One, Commercial Jet
