Tag: iran

When Donald Trump launched the Iran War on February 28, the usual suspects were in full support. From the moment the conflict ignited, many couldn’t help but immediately express admiration for the president, saying that only a brave, noble, and strong leader would’ve had the courage to do what Trump did here. For weeks, we heard that this war was essential, that we would be better off as a result, and that to be unsupportive was to be siding with the IRGC.

As weeks went by, however, it became apparent that the rosy picture that had been painted in the war’s infancy was not based in reality. One month turned into two, and then three, and here we are now about six months later, with none of the war’s stated objectives having been achieved. Because of the historic nature of this defeat, it is important to reflect on how we got here.

Who were the voices cheering the administration on as it led us down this dark path?

Why did they have such hatred for those of us who opposed the war?

Most importantly, who can’t we trust going forward?

Ben Shapiro

Among the war’s top early cheerleaders was Ben Shapiro. From the first moments of the conflict, Shapiro was praising Donald Trump’s decision to launch the war.

“President Trump is the most courageous commander-in-chief in modern American history,” Shapiro excitedly said. “What he just did is the bravest move by a president of the United States of my lifetime, bar none, without a doubt.”

Shapiro also immediately made it his mission to smear the war’s critics. Doing his best play on David Frum’s 2003 article “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” Shapiro began labeling some of the most prominent anti-war voices – including libertarian Dave Smith – “America-haters.” In a March 4 episode of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” Shapiro makes some very bold – and uninformed – predictions for how the war would play out.

Addressing concerns early on in the war about U.S. munition stockpiles, Shapiro urged his audience to ignore the naysayers, and rest assured that “ we do have significant stockpiles.” To build on his narrative, he claimed that the Iranian’s were “running out of missile launchers.” “This is a major problem for them,” he emphasized.

“The status is pretty good,” Shapiro told his podcast listeners, “things are moving pretty well.”

Shapiro’s blind faith in the government narrative was not enough to will the U.S. to victory, however. His uncritical rereading of Trump’s Truth Social post – in which he claims that we have a “virtually unlimited supply” of munitions – may have convinced his audience to get on board with the war, but this trust in the administration eventually crashed against the rocks of reality.

The U.S. does not have “unlimited” munitions. The Iranian’s ability to launch missiles has not been effectively degraded. This war has not gone as the administration intended, and the biggest proof of this is the conflict’s length. The war was originally sold as a weeks-long offensive, but it turned out to be a drastically larger undertaking than the White House anticipated, and one that has engulfed the Trump presidency.

Keep reading

The Trump administration believes it has turned the tables on Iran. Washington assesses that the rerouting of maritime traffic through the Omani corridor, combined with a global shift away from Persian Gulf oil, has reduced the effectiveness of Tehran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the U.S. blockade has sharply constrained Iran’s ability to sell its oil. The result, in Washington’s view, is a status quo that imposes greater costs on Iran than on the United States.

That calculation changes the strategic equation. Rather than being forced to accommodate Iranian demands, President Donald Trump now believes he can afford to wait Tehran out. For the first time since the war began, the White House has concluded, time is working in America’s favor.

Assuming that assessment is correct, the more important question is what Trump intends to do with this newfound leverage. If Washington interprets Iran’s vulnerability as an opportunity to extract capitulation rather than to negotiate a durable settlement, the result is more likely to be another round of war than an end to the conflict. Tehran has already demonstrated that when confronted with a choice between surrender and escalation, it will choose the latter. Giving Iran the same choice again is therefore unlikely to produce a different outcome.

The only way to turn this unexpected shift in the balance of leverage into a political victory is through diplomacy. If Washington’s assessment is correct, it now has an opportunity to use its leverage to secure a compromise that addresses its core interests while giving Tehran sufficient reason to accept an agreement. If, instead, the administration pursues maximalist demands, it risks converting a moment of leverage into another cycle of war.

Historically, however, Washington has tended to make precisely this mistake. Whenever U.S. policymakers have concluded that time and leverage are on their side, they have often treated Iranian weakness not as an opening for compromise, but as an opportunity to seek capitulation. The danger is that Trump will repeat that pattern. He will mistake leverage for victory and turn a potentially favorable negotiating position into the continuation of the tragedy that is US-Iran relations.

Trump failed militarily, but thinks he can win economically

America has run out of military options. The clearest indication is that the Trump administration has stopped striking Iranian targets even as Tehran continues to attack ships transiting the Strait. On Monday, an Iranian attack killed a sailor aboard a vessel using the southern corridor. Yet Washington did not respond militarily – even though the second round of the war began precisely because the administration had declared that it could not accept Iran firing on ships.

According to Reuters, U.S. forces have used virtually all of their global stockpile of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) during the five-month Iran conflict. Moreover, roughly 65% of Patriot interceptors, 38% of THAAD interceptors, and almost half of the Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missiles have been expended.

The depletion of these stocks appears to have forced Trump to abandon its pursuit of a military knockout and instead shift the burden of economic pressure onto Tehran. That strategy, in turn, appears to be producing results faster—and to a greater degree – than the administration anticipated.

Keep reading