At Every Fork In The Road On Iran, Trump’s Choices Get Worse

President Donald Trump has arrived at yet another fork in the road on Iran. But each time he reaches such a point, his options only become more narrow and the costs of any course of action grow.

The Trump administration explained Sunday that a pause in air strikes — now up to three nights, after 13 straight nights of attacks — was meant to create space for diplomacy. But it also warned it was “locked and loaded” for another possible escalation.

There are some signs of diplomatic activity. Iran said it hosted talks with Oman at deputy foreign minister level in recent days. But there’s so far no sign the Islamic Republic will shift on its core demand, which caused the latest flare-up with the US: its insistence on controlling shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said in a televised press conference that no talks were currently taking place with the US and that Tehran “will never allow the United States to determine the timing of war and peace.”

Trump finds himself back in a familiar spot. He’s tried to coerce Iranian concessions with intensified attacks. But this plan is not working any better now than it did after the initial round of fighting. He could increase the pressure by deploying ground troops, a move that might take advantage of the US military edge. But this would risk significant US casualties in an already deeply unpopular war.

Nearly five months into a war he’d said would take a few weeks, Trump keeps trying to create maneuvering space against Tehran. But all the strategy seems to do is leave him with less room and worse choices.

And the political heat is rising. A jump in oil prices last week creates the likelihood of higher gasoline costs and more angst for the majority of Americans who oppose the war — although Brent crude, the international benchmark, fell more than 6% Monday following the pause in fighting. An alternative oil shipping route through the Red Sea is now being threatened by Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Global crude inventories are approaching critically low levels, stoking fears of a worsening energy crisis. All of this is unfolding ahead of the fast approaching midterm elections in November in which Trump’s Republicans already face a tough ride.

As has been the case for weeks, Trump’s options appear unpalatable. This may explain his gyration last week between threats of huge force and claims that Iran is begging to talk. Given the failure to shift the geopolitics of the war, such rhetoric seems aimed more toward domestic audiences than Tehran.

Trump could still choose to act on his blistering rhetoric last week, following a broadening geographic scope of targets in Iran during the latest bout of attacks. He could try to further strangle the Iranian economy by striking transport infrastructure and power plants. But such an approach would heap even more pain on Iranian civilians, whom Trump seemed keen to help at the start of the war. And even some in his inner circle doing think it would not move Tehran’s repressive rulers.

CNN’s Zachary Cohen and Jim Sciutto reported that Vice President JD Vance and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine voiced concern about escalating the war in a White House meeting Friday. Caine was worried about the impact on munitions stockpiles, a source familiar with the matter and a US official said. Last week, CNN’s Katie Bo Lillis reported that both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency recently assessed that the kind of bombing the US most recently carried out is unlikely to shift the Iranian negotiating position, according to two US officials familiar with the assessments.

One other plan would be to extend the US economic blockade on Iran’s ships and ports to try to choke off funding for the Iranian government and revenues needed to sustain the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps military machine. The downside is that it would take weeks or months and still might not reshape Tehran’s thinking. It’s not clear that Trump has the personal patience or the domestic political room to pick such a path. And Iran would likely respond by renewing attacks on commercial tankers in the strait — thereby heightening the shock waves of the war on the global economy and the political pressure in the US.

A third option might see the US to try to renew the collapsed memorandum of understanding that forged a short-lived ceasefire. But Tehran is unlikely to agree unless it secures what it believed the MOU provided to begin with — the right to regulate and monetize strait traffic. This would represent a defeat for the US, since the critical waterway was open before the war. Trump would face domestic political criticism from foreign policy hawks, meanwhile, if he were seen to give Tehran even more favorable terms than those in the initial MOU, which brought the promise of sanctions relief and a regional reconstruction fund.

Everyone seems to be casting around for an elusive new approach.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, for instance, said on “State of the Union” Sunday that Trump should initiate a “national dialogue, where the president comes to the American people, comes to Congress, Congress helps make a tough decision. Is there another way forward?” He told CNN’s Dana Bash that he hoped for a solution that doesn’t give Iran the ability to control the strait and does not involve the US spending “tens of billions of dollars on something which so far has not proven results.”

“We need something different,” Cassidy said.

But it’s a mark of Trump’s conundrum that after five months of war, no one has come up with a workable suggestion for what something different might look like.

The White House handed US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz the task of explaining the administration’s shifting strategy and search for a way out of the war on Sunday talk shows.

Waltz highlighted a recent buildup of military force in the Middle East that fueled expectations Trump might try to intensify the fight. “The regime should believe the president when he says, ‘(We’re) locked and loaded,’ and where all options are on the table,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Waltz argued that “Iran is diplomatically isolated, economically isolated and militarily devastated.” He added: “They’ve never been so weak, and we’re negotiating from a position of strength.”

In military terms, this may be true. But the asymmetric nature of the conflict means that as long as Iran can threaten ships with drones and missiles in the strait, it has the capacity to increase the global costs of the war. And the survival of its repressive regime despite the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei creates a perception of strength against the US global superpower.

The war in Iran meanwhile continues to be a political anvil for the Trump administration. A new CBS News/YouGov poll reflects the president’s chaotic messaging on the conflict, with only 31% of Americans saying they had a clear understanding of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. Only 40% said the US had the advantage in the conflict. And 76% said the war with Iran had been harder than the Trump administration expected.

But Waltz insisted that the president’s core goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon would be recognized by history. “Sometimes, that’s going to be harder than — you know, harder than initially planned for,” he told NBC.

For months, Trump has sought to force Iranian capitulation without embroiling the United States in the kind of Middle East ground wars that he decried on the campaign trail. But experience is showing that the war may not be winnable within the self-imposed limits on US action. Another step up the ladder of escalation may simply deliver Trump back to the same unenviable dilemma. But there’s no obvious path to a peace deal that fulfills US goals.

It seems like the definition of a no-win situation.

SOURCE: CNN