Unlock the free White House Watch newsletter
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
The author is Director of Regional Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies
And thus begins America and Israel’s latest brazen and entirely predictable gambit to shape the Middle East to their liking.
Many people have mistakenly assumed or chosen to believe that President Donald Trump is against war or is conducting subtle coercive diplomacy to extract limited concessions from Tehran. If Trump cares deeply about some things (think tariffs, Greenland, wall building), on most other issues he is a float to others with promises of quick victories and glory. One of these issues is Iran. His hawkish advisers and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have skillfully maneuvered him into a position where war was inevitable.
Soon after the bombs started falling, Trump explicitly called for regime change. He suggested that once he decapitated the regime, it would be up to the Iranian people to seize the gift. He also claimed, without evidence, that the operation would “protect the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Israel’s Foreign Minister reiterated this argument, and called the attacks “preemptive”. Many people do not believe these arguments, but it does not matter.
Trump and Netanyahu are now at each other’s throats. US and Israeli aircraft and cruise missiles have attacked Iran’s leadership sites, command structures and missile facilities. Iran’s supreme leader, its president and its senior security commanders are currently invisible. There is likely to be massive damage to Iran’s decision-making capabilities and military structures. Iranian officials have called on residents to leave the capital.
But the regime was ready to hit back and was planning to strike hard and fast. In a break with Iran’s self-restraint in previous rounds, a senior Revolutionary Guards official said all red lines had been removed. Since Iran cannot defend itself, the thinking is that it will soon have to impose a significant cost on others in order to stop the fighting.
Iran’s missile crews responded within hours of the attacks, evidence of whether the leadership in Tehran is alive and functioning, with a decentralized response to frequent launches. Iran used its vast arsenal of precision short-range ballistic missiles against targets closest to its coast, which had survived last summer’s 12-day war. At the time of writing, several waves of Iranian attacks have been recorded allegedly targeting US bases in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, while missiles were reportedly intercepted over Qatar, Iraq, Jordan and Syria.
Now the question is whether Iran can maintain this momentum. Every time its forces launch a missile, it leaves a trail that superior American and Israeli air and intelligence systems can use to destroy the launchers, which are limited in number. And units dispersed across the country will struggle to maintain readiness and secure resupply without a central command.
Iran’s growing options include disrupting maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz to raise oil prices and forcing the US Navy, which prefers to operate remotely, to expose itself in Gulf waters. But it is also risky because Iran’s coastal energy-export infrastructure is vulnerable to US retaliation, which would cut it off from trade. And many of Iran’s partners in the region are now likely to unite.
Iran is calculating that pain in the Gulf, defensive arms shortages in the US and Israel, and international concern will force a short campaign. The exact opposite can also happen. Considerable anger at Iran has been expressed in official statements by Saudi Arabia and other states, as well as in private comments. They had hoped their diplomacy would save them from Iran’s wrath, but videos of a massive explosion at a US base in Manama and a missile interception in the United Arab Emirates show exactly the opposite of what Gulf governments, their sheltered citizens and wealthy expatriates had hoped for life there.
If the attacks intensify, the Gulf states may relax their opposition to US use of their military infrastructure and airspace. Western countries are also facing dilemmas. With Ukraine and Greenland in mind, many people are getting ready to support a war they don’t necessarily believe in. If called upon by their Gulf partners to act on their defensive commitments, they may have to engage in operations. Even among those who condemned the attack, there is little patience or sympathy for Iran. The bloody repression of the protest movement in January and Iran’s support for Russia in its war against Ukraine are fresh in everyone’s mind.
No one should be surprised by the military advantage shown by the US and Israel in the early hours of this conflict. What matters is how the war ends – and Trump’s America is unlikely to manage the long-term regional mess it is creating.
