You know from other discussions that I greatly value your strategic insight, so I say the following with nothing but respect and out of an interest to intellectually engage with this.
The biggest problem with this take is that it requires taking at face value the statements of senior officials of a post-credibility administration nearly three weeks into a war that they never clearly stated up front the purpose nor objectives of. They did not attempt to articulate clear objectives from day one, or at least early on; no clear and objective case was made to Congress nor to the American people writ large. Whatever Trump’s initial objectives are, no claim was staked and so he cannot be held to them. No metrics or success were stated nor can be inferred.
@ytz beat me to my intended use of the term retcon; whatever Trump initially wanted or intended, by the time Hegseth and Caine spoke, they could massage their message based on the reality of that date- again. Early three weeks in, after a lot has seemingly gone poorly.
The objectives stated by Hegseth and Caine are rational. They are what I would have expected on day one. They don’t match what the administration is currently saying or doing, though. By the date of that interview the flow of trade and the preservation of Gulf economic infrastructure were clearly dominant factors in this conflict, but they are unstated and unaddressed. The most generous interpretation is that we’re getting the February 28th intent on March 19th, without accounting for any of what has happened in between. More likely we’re seeing the adults in the room taking their best stab at an ex post facto justification of what was probably supposed to be a quick in and out with a regime collapse.
Regarding the three additional political objectives you referenced:
1. Iran is, if anything, driven further to China’s bosom than they were before… And that was already a lot. Watch for China to fund reconstruction and redevelopment on terms that are seemingly generous up front but that further bind Iran to them in trade flows. China will also be milking this war for every possible lesson learned about how to defeat American air defense and standoff weapons. China (and probably Russia) will help Iran rebuild itself as a regional foil to America’s reasserted imperialism. China is likely happy to keep this thing rolling so that American produced (not just their own, but inclusive of those they’ll be pressured to replace) interceptor stocks are further depleted.
2. The notion that this will ‘eliminate’ Iran as an enemy of the U.S. is, without a regime change that is both
succesful and
facourable, frankly farcical. They will now be more pissed off and more determined to develop and possess the means to resist US hegemony. Their proxies are currently largely neutered, but they’ll rebuild. The Iranian regime appears resilient, and regime change is not one of the states at aims, nor do U.S. actions paint a picture of that as a covert intent. The regime seems here to stay. They will remain an enemy, and will be generationally refreshed as such.
3. Without the aforementioned regime change, the US will have no additional control over crude oil production, save for perhaps being able to cause some supply destruction. They can put a hand on the taps of more
distribution. Will they have the cojones to stare China down and choke off more of their supply? Not sure. China has extremely potent levers they can pull… Word on the street is the U.S. may have a sudden and significant need to replenish a lot of munitions that require certain critical minerals that they need to buy from China for a few years yet. China is powerful enough that they don’t need to tolerate the U.S. choking off their Iranian oil supply, they’ve clearly made a deal with Iran to allow their supplies through, and the U.S. seems loath to intercept any of these sanction China-destined tankers at sea. China seems to have enough cards to make a hand.
I can’t and won’t speak to whether any particular nation or government or personality has undue influence over Trump and urged him to this course of action. Whatever led him to be convinced to this war, it seems very likely now that he blundered. He thought he was getting something clean and quick… He’s gotten something more different than that with each day that passes.
And it sucks, because the Iranian regime is evil. If this was going to be done, it needed to be done right so it could be decisive and effective. A pragmatic decision to go after Iran should have come with all the proper planning and prep - and the casualty acceptance - to make sure the Iranian regime as we know it would cease to be, and that a viable and tolerable alternative would be put in place. Sadly the ‘week after’ seems to be an afterthought…
