By Tom Fowdy
The Trump administration has pledged an "Economic D-Day" against Iran in the form of a massive sanctions campaign.
Citing the infamous George W. Bush quote, "you're with us or against us," the White House is clearly vowing to place massive secondary sanctions on anyone who does business with Tehran, with the goal of what US Commerce Secretary Scott Bessent explicitly stated as "regime change."
As BBC commentary on the matter stated: "Nearly six months after US President Donald Trump vowed a swift victory over Iran, the conflict appears to be at a standstill, with prospects of a military victory or negotiated settlement growing dimmer." Repeated attempts at making a settlement, despite Trump's boasting of success, got nowhere, and likewise neither have attempts to formally reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Instead of the capitulation the US assumed, Iran's capabilities have proved extraordinarily resilient, and they have been able to deliberate punishment across US bases and assets across the region, with the Department of Defence having stated over 750 US servicemen were injured amidst this war. For President Trump, one thing is clear, what he gambled on an extremely hasty regime collapse, empowered by the hubris of the Maduro operation in Venezuela has become a disaster, and as I noted months ago, a political quagmire he has no way out of.
As a result, the administration's talk of imposing more sanctions to try and topple the regime is not coming from a position of strength or strategy, but desperation. The reason this is happening is a strategic conundrum that strikes at the heart of US foreign policy objectives: The United States only accepts unilateral capitulation as an outcome in conflicts with adversarial states and does not believe in compromise, for it subsequently cedes strategic ground to the enemy, which then undercuts America's long-term hegemonic position. As a result, while America may accept a freezing or alleviation of conflict, it does not make "strategic concessions."
Therefore, since the conflict began, the Trump administration's logic pertaining to Iran is simple: Tehran must unilaterally capitulate to one-sided US terms, and face termination of its regime if it does not. However, this approach has severely underestimated Iran's leverage. Tehran has retaliated by closing the Strait of Hormuz, provoking a global energy crisis, and meting out enormous attacks on US allies and bases, which have shown a high level of resilience. This has allowed Iran, in turn, to make significant demands to the United States in order for the conflict to end, which for Washington are a non-starter.
After all, if your goal was to terminate the Iranian state, demand its nuclear weapons program end and roll back its military capabilities, why on earth would you then suddenly agree to lifting all sanctions on Iran and calling it quits, and thus leaving a stronger Tehran in the long run? And therefore undercutting your own power projection in the Middle East? The US has been rattled by Iran's retaliation, but America's foreign policy circles see compromising with Tehran as a non-starter, for it is demonized as a hostile, adversarial state. This has created a rolling cycle of talks which have got nowhere.
The US does not have a single good option left in order to force Iran to do what it wants, which is why we are now hearing about an "Economic D-day," so to speak. But this itself is ludicrous after all the US, since Trump first took office in 2017, has relentlessly slapped sanctions on Iran, its economy is already in a very weak state, but has it collapsed the regime? And has it undermined Tehran's ability to fight back?
The answer is no, it hasn't at all, so what use is more of the same? This conflict has ultimately exposed the limitations of Donald Trump. The President repeatedly uses a playbook of asserting leverage over an opponent, threatening with escalatory rhetoric, scaremongering that a worst-case scenario is coming, and then fearmongering the target into unilateral capitulation. That might work for naïve allied states eager to appease him at any cost (such as Britain and its unprecedented distribution of Royal Visits), but it certainly doesn't work in a scenario where a state sees its entire national interest in resisting and has nothing left to lose.
Thus, the D in "D-day" certainly stands for "Don't have a clue." The conflict is the biggest self-inflicted foreign policy disaster America has faced since Vietnam.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | Are Trump's latest threats to South Korea another 'nothingburger'
Opinion | How China's anti-sanctions law mirrors US 'long-arm jurisdiction' in a defensive way
Comment