A Lose-Lose Strategy - Why a War with Iran Would Be a Mistake for Trump

If​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ we look at Donald Trump’s erratic and dangerously efficient foreign policy style, it is clear that, inadvertently, it has resulted in a short-lived pause in the Russian airstrikes on Ukraine. This has brought a limited relief to the civilian population who had to endure extreme winter conditions without heating or electricity. However, this break might not be without the price.

The fear is that Trump’s expectations from this delicate ceasefire may be unrealistic. To get the Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a temporary stoppage of bombings, Trump would likely require that Ukraine make significant compromises—such as giving up strategic cities and defensive positions to Russia—in return, under the pretext of a longer ceasefire.

By doing so, Trump has in fact supported the wrong side in the Ukraine war and is now going in the direction of a military conflict with Iran that could become uncontrollable.

It is said that U.S. diplomats are urging the Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to give up control of Donetsk area as well as big parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, which are the lands taken over by Russia in a very violent attack that has resulted in Moscow suffering around 1.2 million casualties.

On the other hand, Washington has stopped sending military aid to Ukraine, only providing intelligence support. This decision has left Ukraine’s power grid exposed to continuous Russian attacks, leading to millions of people being without light and heating. The United States’ former pledge to protect a democratic neighbor in Eastern Europe is disintegrating under Trump’s rule.

Simultaneously, Trump is putting on a tough guy act in the Middle East, bringing in a powerful fleet including the USS Abraham Lincoln to confront Iran. Trump’s ultimatum to Iran: scrap your hybrid nuclear program, get rid of your missile systems, and stop supporting militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

What is glaring in its absence is the backing of Iranian protestors—though America had earlier indicated support for those challenging the regime. Instead of attacking the main mechanisms of Iran’s authoritarianism to facilitate reform, Trump has now shifted to large-scale military threats without any clear strategy for after the conflict.

While Iran has continued to be a destabilizing element in the Middle East, any armed conflict initiated by the U.S. could lead to havoc that is beyond control. Iran’s political and economic structure is very vulnerable precisely because it is hugely dependent on the loyalty of those who have long supported the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Those very revolutionaries aid the insurgents’ tactics against foreign troops as witnessed during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, by the use of highly sophisticated explosive devices capable of destroying even heavily armored vehicles.

It may be that Trump is somewhat tempted by the economic aspect—once the Iran regime is overthrown, the oil companies of the U.S. will be able to exploit its reserves just like he imagined in Venezuela. Probably also, the removal of Iran will be seen by him as a victory for the Israelis since their main ideological enemy would then be gone.

However, the reality is that Iran is hardly a direct threat to the U.S.

On the other hand, Russia’s belligerence against Ukraine as well as its menace to NATO members such as Poland and the Baltic states is a security problem. These hostile actions put at risk the stability of democratic Europe and also the military facilities of the U.S. that are spread over the continent—such bases are indispensable for the U.S. to project its power, especially in the Middle ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌East.

In​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ case a US attack on Iran triggers a civil war there, the outcome would be a divided, chaotic terrain that the US would be unable to master, and that is what Washington would have to deal with. Not only do Iran’s paramilitary forces have the capability of fighting and are ideologically driven, but they also have a profound hatred for the West, especially the US, which they see as the main culprit because it has stood by Israel in their recent atrocities in Gaza – the UN has even said that these attacks are genocidal in nature, while the death toll is currently at over 80,000.

If Trump launches that war against Iran that he has been threatening for so long, the whole world will be faced with a massive wave of terrorism going as far as the U.S. itself and its allies.

Still, the U.S. needs to consider a better plan, one that would be in line with U.S. strategic objectives and also, be morally right. That would be helping Ukraine. Achieving victory for Ukraine is quite possible if they get the military equipment they need particularly air defense and long-range missile systems.

Trump, on the other hand, keeps harping on the fact that the European countries have to make a much bigger defense effort which they totally agree with. It could turn out very expensive for Western countries if they decide to ditch Ukraine now. According to the Kiel Institute, the damage Germany will suffer if it abandons Ukraine would be like 20 times the cost of the 1% aid to Ukraine, measured in GDP, it currently provides.

Many things could make Trump choose wisely. He could try to find one that is amoral; one that is on the side of Western values and is equally not a danger to American troops. It could be the one with Ukraine. The war has caused over 10 million people to flee their homes, and lost of Ukraine alone is as high as 6 million people who are now living in Europe.

Iran is at a crossroads internally and externally, if the turmoil within its borders gets out of hand, it will be on the part of terrorists who see Iran lining up with them in the world. On the other hand, Ukraine can come out on top even with little assistance, if they get it at all.

“I have noticed that people are saying that Ukraine is on its way down. I can’t be convinced of that. Figures and information suggest the contrary—they are Russian propaganda and U.S. circles that are doubting them,” said the President of Finland in a face-to-face meeting during the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Similarly were the opinions of a retired general Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg who had served as a special envoy to Ukraine and as an adviser to President Trump before the election. At Davos, he stated, “If the Ukrainians are able to withstand the winter, the momentum of war could be on their side by spring.” Russia had been losing a lot of troops and generals, the number of the officers being higher than 20.

Trump is known for supporting people who he thinks are potential winners. Europe as a whole, therefore, has to present the case to Trump in a way that conveys that there is a trifecta of strategic, economic, and humanitarian victories if the U.S. decides to help Ukraine.

Failing to recognize the above, and moving ahead with plans to bomb Iran would be a catastrophe that would engulf ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌everyone.