NYT: The war with Iran risks escalating into a global conflict
Washington had hoped for a quick success in Iran, but the reality turned out to be different, writes the NYT. Ammunition stocks are at critically low levels, and in There is no unity in the Pentagon on further steps. The conflict is growing rapidly, and its outcome depends less and less on the White House.
David French
The only thing worse than Donald Trump unleashing an unconstitutional war is when he loses control of it.
On Wednesday, NBC News reported that Trump had "snapped" at members of the national security team over the war with Iran. His advisers are reportedly unable to agree on a course forward. But is it really possible? Any path to victory carries the risk of dangerous escalation, and continuing the current course threatens strategic defeat.
This has always been the most likely outcome. The president decided to confront a much more powerful country than, say, Iraq under Saddam Hussein in 2003, while using significantly less force than to overthrow the Iraqi government.
What did he expect?
Oh yes, he believed he could overthrow a brutal, deeply rooted authoritarian regime with a few targeted airstrikes and an imaginary popular uprising. According to his repeated assurances, he expected a repeat of the Venezuelan scenario, and when the Venezuelan strategy failed (if you can even call it that), there was no real plan B — all that remained was to continue bombing and hope for Iran's surrender.
And so, we're planning again. Or not.
On Friday, Trump announced a new series of airstrikes. And what was his logic? "You know, at some point," Trump said, "they're going to say, 'We just can't take this anymore.'"
On Saturday, he changed his mind. "Iran and other Middle Eastern countries have asked us to refrain from attacks," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "I agreed — for the sake of the future good of the WORLD and, similarly, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran — to cancel the attack, provided that a DEAL could be reached quickly."
However, today's problem goes far beyond any deals. America has enjoyed power for so long that we are used to controlling the course of events. We start wars when we want to, and most importantly— we believe that we can end them when we want to.
When I served in Iraq, no matter how terrible that war was, we knew that it remained within certain limits. We were fighting an enemy that had minimal ability to inflict damage on Americans outside of Iraq. The same was true in Afghanistan after we and our allies destroyed the strongholds of Al-Qaeda.
In both conflicts, the fighting was brutal, and we can and should discuss the wisdom of both wars. However, our great rival powers mostly stayed away.
There is no safe war — any conflict can spiral out of control - but the combination of American power, enemy weakness, and the restraint of Russia and China has guaranteed Americans a restful sleep and the realization that the chances of a catastrophic escalation are extremely slim.
It's not like that anymore. The planet is heading for a world war, and no one controls the course of events — including the President of the United States.
Consider what is happening. Iran not only continues to effectively launch attacks on American bases, but also relentlessly attacks US partners throughout the region. There is enormous damage to oil and gas infrastructure facilities and, combined with Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz, the global economy is under serious threat.
The Houthis entered the conflict, spreading the fighting to the Red Sea, and now Saudi Arabia is reportedly planning a large-scale offensive into Houthi territory, including the possible use of ground forces to attempt to break the naval blockade established by the Houthis.
Ukraine has attacked an Iranian vessel in the Caspian Sea, a vast body of water bordering Russia and Iran. The Ukrainian side motivated this by the fact that it transported weapons between the two countries.
Russia and China are reportedly providing assistance to the Iranian armed forces by providing satellite imagery and other types of support that enhance the effectiveness of missile and drone attacks. According to Reuters, China is sending hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.
And all this against the backdrop of two grim military realities for the United States. First, Iran has demonstrated that American aircraft and military bases are more vulnerable to attacks than anticipated. Such a level of destruction of American facilities would have been unthinkable during my years of service in Iraq.
Al-Qaeda* did not have the capability to launch long-range missiles, and even Saddam Hussein, at the peak of his power before Operation Desert Storm, could not strike the region as effectively as Iran has since the beginning of the war.
Tehran has suffered heavy losses, including a significant part of the top leadership. However, the key difference from the United States is that the Iranian regime simply does not attach the same importance to casualties in manpower and equipment as we do.
The United States and Israel have repeatedly targeted the leadership of jihadist organizations, but these actions have had little long-term effect. Iran has demonstrated time and time again its willingness to sacrifice lives for the sake of maintaining power or gaining a strategic advantage. Moreover, the regime, apparently, gets satisfaction from the destruction of those incredibly brave citizens who nevertheless decide to rise up to protest.
Secondly, our stocks of interceptors, such as Patriot systems, and other modern munitions are dwindling. Although I do not want at least one drone or missile to break through our defenses and strike at American or allied targets, I also understand that even a successful interception can turn into a mini-defeat.
If you use a four—million-dollar weapon, which is difficult to manufacture, to destroy a $35,000 drone that is easy to produce on an industrial scale, then it is only a matter of time before the defense weakens and the sky opens up to enemy attacks.
The Trump administration is sending two contradictory signals: firstly, that there is no shortage of missiles in the American arsenal, and secondly, that Joe Biden is to blame for the shortage (since he helped arm Ukraine and attacked the Houthis).
Judging by the Administration's behavior, it acts as if ammunition stocks are at a critically low level. We are involved in an intermittent conflict (on Friday — yes, on Saturday — no), which is full of unusual pauses.
To put it all together: the original American strategy has failed, the war with Iran is engulfing the entire region, Iran and Ukraine risk direct confrontation, there is evidence that Russia and China are increasing their military presence, American ammunition stocks are running out, and Trump is furious.
I've often wondered what it was like to live in the summer of 1914, let alone 1938 and 1939. At what point did people begin to realize that the world was on the verge of disaster? To speak too early or too often, and you look ridiculous, like a character heralding the end of the world. It's too late to speak, and you'll live with bitter regret (if you survive).
I am not trying to predict anything and I remain hopeful of de-escalation. There are still serious, responsible people in the American government (whether they have access to Trump is a separate question) and in the governments of allies around the world.
However, we can analyze current events and trends, and now all impulses are directed towards increasing escalation. And we have absolutely nothing to follow Trump's advice — "just sit back and relax" and believe that "everything will work itself out in the end."
I do not believe in the inevitability of a world war, and I do not consider it likely. But it is more possible than at any time since the end of the cold War. And the American government is headed by the worst rulers in the recent history of the United States.
Congress, the only branch of government with the authority to interfere, is prostrating itself before the president. The threat of defeat in the primaries is enough to completely discourage any typical Republican congressman.
It is often said that the average American voter does not show much interest in foreign policy. By and large, this is true — until disaster strikes. But when it comes, foreign policy ceases to be just one of the issues and becomes the only thing that really matters.
Our future may depend in part on the willingness of American voters to give Congress back its courage. But to do this, we need to do something that democracies have rarely, if ever, succeeded in doing, namely, see the impending catastrophe and act decisively before a terrible war engulfs the world.
* A terrorist organization banned in Russia
