Why Donald Trump gambled in Iran

A LONG LIST of American presidents has come to grief in the Middle East. Despite their travails, on the morning of February 28th Donald Trump struck Iran with wave after wave of missiles and bombs. As everyone knows—including the Pentagon and members of his administration—the outcome of the war is highly uncertain. The strikes, undertaken with Israel, could usher in a new Iranian government ready to make peace; but they could also lead to chaos and further bloodshed. Regardless, Mr Trump has enthusiastically taken the gamble.

Setting out his reasons for attacking shortly after the strikes had begun, the president seemed to want it all. He warned that he would not tolerate the threat from Iran’s ballistic missiles. He vowed to end its nuclear programme. And he called on Iran’s people to rise up and the security forces to turn against the regime. Within hours, Mr Trump was able to confirm the death of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel released news of the killing of senior Iranian military and political officials.

Despite this stunning initial success at decapitating the regime, there is every chance that Mr Trump will not get what he wants. In the short run, Iran may wreak devastation in the region, by continuing to use its many remaining missiles to strike cities in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, whose prosperity depends on being safe. The regime could also hit a base or a ship, killing a large number of uniformed Americans—news of the death of three American troops on Sunday hinted at the danger. By damaging oil fields or blocking tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz it could drive oil prices towards $100 or above.

In the longer run, the strikes could also fail in a more fundamental way. The Iranian regime has long been preparing for the succession of Khamenei, an elderly and ailing man. For the time being, power rests with a triumvirate. In time, he may be replaced by someone who is likely to have been implicated in the killing of many thousands of Iranians in anti-government protests in January. With fresh blood on his hands, the new ruler could be just as hard-line and cruel as his predecessor. He may continue to stockpile ballistic missiles, safe in the knowledge that it would be hard to justify another war over that alone. Rather than renounce nuclear enrichment in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, he may conclude that, like North Korea, Iran needs a bomb to be safe from attack.

Or perhaps Iran will collapse into chaos and civil war that could spill beyond its borders. In that case, who knows where its supplies of enriched uranium might end up.

Mr Trump must surely understand all this. His supporters tend to be against going to war, especially in the Middle East. Even if the oil-price rise is modest, it could rile MAGA voters as midterm elections approach. He did not have to strike Iran. He could instead have claimed that nuclear talks in Geneva last week were making progress and played for time. So why did he think the risk is worth taking?

One reason could be to outshine that long list of presidents by being the one to settle scores with Iran. For months allies urging caution, such as Gulf rulers, have vied for Mr Trump’s ear with leaders eager for strikes, notably in Israel. If hawks told Mr Trump that he could go down in history by settling scores with Iran, it worked. In his eight-minute address on Saturday Mr Trump reminded Americans of the humiliation their country endured in 1979 when their compatriots were held hostage in their embassy in Tehran for 444 days. Iranian-American relations have never recovered.

Another reason could be the opportunity to deal with Iran while it was weak. Last year the country’s air-defence systems were degraded, leaving the skies open to incursions. The twelve-day war in June also depleted the military and civilian leadership. In January’s protests the regime lost the faith of its people more profoundly than at any time since the revolution. Encouraged by Israel, which has successfully attacked Hizbullah in Lebanon and pro-Iranian forces in Syria, perhaps Mr Trump decided he would never have a better moment to act.

In this, Iran fits into a new and broad pattern in which America asserts power. Often, Mr Trump has used tariffs and sanctions to bend governments to his will. But he is also increasingly prepared—eager even—to use military force. Saturday’s strikes took place just eight weeks after an American raid in Venezuela. Cuba is under immense pressure to fall in with the government in Washington. In each case, Mr Trump is using force against foes that welcomed China and Russia.

You might have expected America to preserve the status quo in global affairs that has served it well since the end of the cold war. Instead, Mr Trump is hurtling towards the future, gleefully flouting the international laws and norms that bound his predecessors. No previous administration would have sought to destroy the regime in Iran without a plan, however flawed, of what to put in its place. In Afghanistan and Iraq George W. Bush sought to install democracy. In Venezuela, by contrast, Mr Trump removed a dictator and left his brutal co-oppressors in charge.

But this is a new world in which Mr Trump has given up promoting American values in favour of amassing American power. It is a violent place in which breaking a country is permissible, regardless of the consequences, so long as leaders understand that they should yield to American force.

Do not underestimate the deterrent power of the massive strikes in Iran, regardless of what happens next. The message will not be lost on China, which has stood by as America and Israel have remade the Middle East. It is an approach that will sometimes realise Mr Trump’s boast of bringing “peace through strength”. But when the only organising principle is American might, the Trumpian strategy could also cause a spiral of anarchy and violence. Conflicts may multiply. The government in Washington may not have the appetite—or the capacity—to control them.

The hope is yet that Iranians will emerge from this campaign freer and more prosperous. But if their misery endures, do not expect Mr Trump to step in. His main work is almost done. ■