President Donald Trump’s amassing of forces in the Middle East boxed him into action, many felt. The question now is how much?
Trump calls the operation “massive and ongoing.” The second word is self-evident, and the first perhaps muted in impact because of his love of hyperbole. But he has set goals, and one is: “We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground.”
That is no easy task. And it is one where the results will be immediately palpable: Would it leave Iran able to fire back at Israel and US assets in the region at all? Trump also sets their sights on Iran’s proxies, harking back, it seems, to the past in Iraq where they used IEDs to kill US troops.
Trump also said Tehran had “every opportunity” to dismantle their nuclear ambitions. The latest Iranian offer, as reported by mediator Oman, said Tehran agreed to “zero stockpiling” or enriched material, a late concession clearly short of the “zero enrichment” that the US has been demanding.
But Trump’s goals widened further in his video announcing the strikes, offering Revolutionary Guards and police “complete immunity” if they lay down their arms, or face “certain death.” He called on the Iranian people to rise up, saying that they had called for help for years and now “you have a president who is giving you what you want.”
Trump leaves no doubt of the scope of his ambition here: it is pretty much everything — although he does not seem to explicitly demand regime change, just hope it happens.
The question that needs answering, as the bombs fall, is whether this is him talking big and hoping for results, or the start of a keenly planned, intensely focused offensive
His top brass has warned the Pentagon might lack the resources for a sustained campaign. That dynamic has not changed because of this bombastic announcement. And the weakness of Iran in this moment is a given: they will fight to the end if pushed but also prefer an off-ramp that increases their chance of survival. At this moment, it does not look like either side have a final, decisive conflict as their preferred option, whatever Trump says. That is key.
It is hard to see how diplomacy can play a role in a moment like this, but it is the most likely scenario, eventually.
Regime change and dismantling a nuclear program is hard – if not impossible – to achieve even with the huge forces arrayed. The telegraphing of this assault will have reduced some of its effectiveness, with key leaders and infrastructure able to prepare for the violence ahead.
But key to some of the limits on Trump’s power was the nature of how this new war came to be.
Unlike 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, we do not have an electorate briefed and ready, or political capital for Trump to spend, or amassed US forces so powerful the outcome is indisputable and swift.
This potentially limits Trump’s options, and it is far from ideal to enter a conflict like this with the clock likely ticking on how long you can politically sustain your assault.