I have often expressed puzzlement over the Trump administration’s cease fire in Iran and its strategy going forward. In general, my views align with Scott’s, as expressed earlier today. However, for a more optimistic view, check out Condoleezza Rice’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:
The war against Iran has been a limited war, and its outcome is likely to be inconclusive. But it has achieved enough to produce a far better Middle East.
The three-month military campaign degraded Iran’s ability to project power by significantly damaging its conventional forces, missile stockpiles and proxies.
Yes. That was the objective, and the objective has been achieved.
It drew America, Israel and the Arab states closer together through defense cooperation and intelligence sharing. In this regard, Israel has never been more secure.
That was clearly true early on in the conflict, but it seems that the alliance has been fractured to some degree following closure of the Strait and blockage of oil shipments from the Gulf states.
Most important, along with Operation Midnight Hammer last June, Operation Epic Fury set back Iranian nuclear ambitions significantly. It will be a long time before Iran can build a viable nuclear weapon.
Yes, there are large stockpiles of highly enriched uranium somewhere in Iran, but this is a problem for the future, not today. Even if the uranium is at 60% enrichment, a fairly short technical step away from weapons grade, taking that final step is virtually impossible today. To reach weapons-grade—93% or higher—the material must be spun in sensitive centrifuges that are subject to breakage. It is hard to imagine that Iran’s centrifuge cascades survived the intense bombing. The Iranian conversion facility, without which one can’t make a bomb, was destroyed. Its A-team of nuclear scientists has been eliminated.
Again, mission accomplished. So why the seemingly endless cease fire and ongoing negotiations?
In sum, Iran is far weaker today than it was in February. No amount of Iranian propaganda can mask this reality. America’s near-term goals should be to keep it in that weakened state, to strengthen the region’s political realignment, and to make certain that President Trump’s promise that Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon is fulfilled.
The U.S. doesn’t need a nuclear agreement with Iran to achieve these goals.
I agree wholeheartedly, as I do with Rice’s view that Iran should not, on any scenario, receive cash. But here’s the rub:
Finally, we should secure the world’s energy and transportation systems against the vulnerabilities revealed by the war. It is puzzling that the Trump administration appeared to be caught off guard by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, despite decades of anticipation of this by military experts in planning exercises.
Exactly. The Strait is the loose end that complicates my preferred course, which is simply to drop a few more bombs, declare an end to the conflict, and go home. We should continue to blockade Iranian oil until Iran re-opens the Strait, but that issue may remain even if we drop negotiations and declare an end to the conflict.
Further, we should keep up our economic pressure on the regime, which may both cripple its ability to build back its military strength and undermine it domestically.
There is more at the link. I agree with Rice that Iran has been weakened for years to come, which was our goal. But the administration’s unwillingness to stop talking to Tehran, probably linked to our lack of a short-term solution to the problem of the Strait, have cast a pall over what began as a stunningly successful military operation.
