By Tom Fowdy
Donald Trump has announced an indefinite extension of the ceasefire in his war against Iran. Coming just hours after he threatened to bomb the country again, the President has now given more space for talks with Tehran. In doing so, the President has claimed, falsely, that the country's leadership has "failed to come up with a unified proposal" on a deal with the United States, a classic Trump trait wherein he will always claim he has "won" even when he has not; let us not forget on that note the President barged all in on the conflict with the explicitly stated goal of seeking to bring down the Islamic Republic regime itself, which didn't happen.
Considering this, the President is slowly rowing back, step by step, yet desperately trying to convince everyone he is still in control. His conduct throughout the conflict has been nothing short of erratic, saying one thing, doing another. Making extreme threats on one hand, while U-turning on the other to manipulate markets, all while watching the actions he did take yield little results. The root of all his problems is once again, overconfidence derived from Venezuela, combined with the harsh strategic realities of Iran's size and geography, and of course, Israel's input into US politics.
Thus, when faced with the long-term economic consequences of this conflict, Trump has had little option other than to slowly calling it quits, papering over the cracks of what just happened here, moving the goalposts and claiming victories out of clutching straws, as well as praising himself as the "peacemaker" for a war he started. Iran has never had to fight back with parity, rather, it has played a small hand extraordinarily well, hitting where it hurts and being able to exert leverage over the global economy. Even for all the suffering the country itself is experiencing, and its own economy having been tanked by the destruction and the psychological impact of war, Tehran has dwindled American options, and it shows.
However, the jury is still out on whether a "deal" can be reached here, and what it might look like. As previously discussed, neither country is likely to accept strategic capitulation to the other's terms, and if you are the leadership in Tehran, why would you unilaterally surrender your main points of leverage to the United States when you have shown you can cause pain, and moreover, when Washington and Israel show an unapologetic willingness to assassinate your leadership and attack your country anytime they want? Thus, by nature, Iran will demand things which as I have also explained, the US might be unwilling to give.
After all, in starting this war, Trump pushed things beyond the point of no return. The decision to start a war almost always marks an irreversible rupture in a political status quo of which is then altered by whoever is more successful in utilising force. In this case, Trump wanted that change to be the end of the Islamic Republic, and to have Iran as a pacified pro-US client state with strategic hegemony over its oil reserves. That hasn't happened, but nor can things go back to "how they were," given Iran has exerted leverage which forces the US to reconsider the original plan, even if it is unwilling to make strategic concessions, but therein lies the contradiction.
Thus, in my opinion, Trump is subsequently dragging out talks because he intends to politically "kick the can down the road" and not make a deal in the near future, but potentially move on. The war has become a political liability and inconvenience, but his ego and political standing can't handle an admission of failure. I mean, consider this, if the President has proclaimed "victory" so many times, do you think it would be credible at all if the US then agrees to formally "end" the conflict and "lift the blockade" by giving a wish list to Iran? This would be an embarrassment. Thus, while continuing the war is clearly also a liability, not least because he calculated it would end quickly, what is his other option? That option is to just do nothing, leave it, shelve it, and move on. Hence, a great way to do that is to extend the deadline for a deal indefinitely. We might get a formal agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for ending the blockade, but don't expect the underlying causes of the war to ever be resolved, the US and Israel will never renounce their right to attack Iran.
Trump, after all, has done this before. In 2018-2019, Trump met with Kim Jong-un. These meetings served to de-escalate tensions between North Korea and the US, but ultimately achieved nothing in substance. The problem was shelved, and once that problem was put on the shelf, Trump moved on to the next item on his agenda. Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude the President wants this war to go away, but not in a way that makes him appear weak, and a permanent ceasefire is a way to end it, without actually ending it, it minimises risk, but without the liabilities of a peace treaty or the pain of concessions.
The US, after all, loves unfinished, frozen conflicts and duly prefers them than making peace. Hence, the Korean War ended with an armistice and no formal peace treaty, the Chinese Civil War concerning Taiwan is the same, and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will go the same way. This is what happens when there is a mutual desire to end the fighting, but the peace is just too complicated. Trump will claim victory and leave it for someone else.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | How Hong Kong 'reinvented itself' in a new era
Opinion | Trump's nonsensical blockade of Hormuz and the US doctrine of 'no compromise'
Comment