Winston Churchill could muse about the virtues of diplomacy, reportedly saying “Jaw, Jaw and War, War” or words to that effect. In the case of President Trump, the decision has been made: war, not jaw, and bomb, not mere blather.
The stated reason for the attack on three Iranian nuclear sites was Iran’s imminent ability to assemble a nuclear weapon. That danger could not be tolerated. And Israel’s evisceration of much of Iran’s military leadership and its air defenses created a further opportunity for the U.S. to strike.
Regardless of the accuracy of the intelligence, the administration assumed that 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 14 “bunker busters” bombs would impose such “shock and awe” as to force Iran to capitulate.
But no matter how well this strike was planned and executed, this relatively small use of force may prove insufficient for Iran to accept the terms of what amounts to a virtual surrender. And while bomb damage assessment will take time, suppose Iran anticipated a strike and moved its fissile material to a safe location.
Of course, the Trump administration could be proven correct in its assumptions. Yet, history could be relevant. Preemptive attacks and invasions too often fail.
Napoleon and Hitler thought Russia could be brought to its knees and conquered by invading armies. Japan believed that the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and sinking the battleship fleet would cause the U.S. to negotiate. The reasons for the second Iraq War, fraudulently based on weapons of mass destruction that no longer existed, cannot be ignored.
Undeclared or not, the U.S. is now at war with Iran’s clerical theocracy. Beyond fog and friction, war is filled with the most deadly of ironies.
While, by any measure Israel has exercised an excess of violence against Palestinians in its efforts to destroy Hamas, including the destruction of several hospitals deemed as safe havens for the enemy, after Iran struck an Israeli hospital complex, strong retaliation followed. Gaza does not seem to be an issue as Israel has broadened its offensive against Iran beyond nuclear and missile facilities.
A similar irony confronts Trump’s decision to enter the war on Israel’s side.
Having promised not to engage in forever wars, Trump could be consigning America to that fate. While the Fordow complex was the prime target for America’s attack, destroying those facilities, even with 30,000-pound “bunker busters,” cannot be assumed, and without direct physical access, the extent of damage can never be proven.
What Iran does next ranges from accepting American demands to launching major strikes against both U.S. forces and Arab oil-producing facilities in the Gulf. Closing the Strait of Hormuz could lead to an economic disaster and bring U.S. forces in harm’s way, should opening the strait be ordered.
The strait is about 35 miles wide, bringing the U.S. Navy close to Iran’s large supply of short-range missiles. More likely will be measured attacks, including cyber. And do not be surprised if Iran suspends the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which it is a signatory, signaling it may build nuclear weapons after all.
Despite the euphoria accompanying the attack, what could prove worrying is the advice Trump was given, assuming he listens.
First, his administration has not been in office long enough for his national security team to come together. Second, while Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio has served in the Senate, his wartime credentials are slim.
And who would trust the secretary of Defense in these circumstances, although the news initially reported he was bypassed? The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Dan Caine, has no experience or background in dealing with strategic events, only those at the tactical and operational levels.
Vietnam may be relevant. If in August 1964 Lyndon Johnson had not pushed for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which was a de facto declaration of war in Vietnam and allowed the retaliatory air strikes against North Vietnamese targets to be sufficient warning, the catastrophe that followed would have been averted.
Trump could proclaim victory and leave the scene of battle to the Israelis to finish the job —whatever that means. Has anyone reminded the president of that example?
What next? No one can predict. But in these circumstances, be warned. This could be the beginning and not the end of the campaign to deprive Iran of its nuclear aspirations.
Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., (@harlankullman) is UPI’s Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.’s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.