In the hallways of Washington and the media centres monitoring the Middle Eastern conflict, two vastly disparate predictions have been made regarding a possible American strike on Iran. These predictions differ not only in degree but also in kind, revealing a profound divergence of opinion between seasoned analysts of the same data. This divergence presents a stark choice between two irreconcilable predictions that the people around the world must weigh in considering one of the most important decisions the Trump administration must make.
One of these analysts, Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, suggests that if American military action does indeed take place, it will be a calculated restraint, ultimately proving to be a face-saving measure. This action will be limited in scope, unilaterally executed, and intended above all to resolve the political puzzle that currently faces Trump. In stark contrast, the analysis of two former CIA intelligence officers, Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern, suggests that American military action could take place within days, resulting in a conflagration that will engulf American bases, Israel, and the global economy.
What could only be considered a stark contrast between two irreconcilable predictions lies at the heart of this analysis. While Professor Mearsheimer sees a calculated restraint born of military futility, Johnson and McGovern see an inexorable march toward war.
The case for calculated restraint
Professor Mearsheimer’s framework is built on a grim reality: that regime change in Iran remains militarily unachievable and would carry massive negative regional consequences. Indeed, his analysis suggests that American military commanders informed Trump on January 14 that they could not guarantee regime change in Iran, particularly in response to the failure of CIA-orchestrated street protests throughout Iran. This leaves Trump with a series of painful options.
“Simply adding more military force to the region does not make regime change any more achievable,” Mearsheimer argues, “and this is precisely Trump’s problem, which he brought on himself with his bellicose rhetoric.” The only option left for him now, he states, is to launch “a limited strike, which would be a face-saving way to declare victory and then get out.” However, this too poses enormous risks, since “Iran has made it clear that any military strike, no matter how limited, will trigger full-bore retaliation.” The consequences of such an event would be easy to predict: “Iranian missiles falling on American targets throughout the Middle East, attacks on Israel in spite of Israel’s attempts to stay out of this war, and perhaps even an attack on the Strait of Hormuz, an act which would have devastating consequences for the world economy.” One of the core assumptions of Mearsheimer’s argument is his assertion that American policy towards Iran is motivated not by legitimate security concerns but rather by the Israel Lobby. He cites the attempted rapprochement with Iran by the Clinton administration as an example of how American presidents are prevented by the (Zionist) Lobby from pursuing policies beneficial to Israel, and how this creates an ever-present danger of war between the two countries, even when such a war is counterproductive for American interests.
READ: US shoots down Iranian drone approaching American aircraft carrier in Arabian Sea
The warning of imminent catastrophe
Johnson and McGovern have no such doubts. Based on their access to intelligence sources and backchannel information, they report that “a US strike could happen this weekend or next week, with Iran immediately declaring war.”
The operational difficulties they present are formidable. Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have allegedly denied the US access to their airspace, leaving aircraft carriers in vulnerable positions off their coasts. Johnson calculates that the naval armada’s air defense missiles would be exhausted in 10 days of combat without access to a safe port for replenishment, should Bahrain be attacked.
“Iran would likely declare war,” Johnson states matter-of-factly, outlining the three-pronged approach Iran will take: attacking American bases throughout the region, attacking Israel, and closing the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, Johnson points out, is making its intentions clear to the oil-dependent nations of the Gulf and Asia, hoping that they will pressure the US to back down.
McGovern paints the potential consequences in even more dire colours. He points out that Trump may be making the fatal mistake of “the law of unintended consequences,” which could provoke Iran to carry out the “obliteration” of Israel. The rationale for the war, McGovern points out, is obvious—US intelligence assessments have determined Iran “might think about the possibility” of resuming its nuclear program, hardly a justification for unleashing a potential disaster.
Again, McGovern points out the role of Israel as the driving force behind the US, stating that “98 per cent of the reason we’re going to go to war with Iran is because of the priorities of the government in Jerusalem. Those are sacrosanct in Washington.” But unlike Mearsheimer’s scenario, McGovern points out that there is no evidence Iran is backing down. The June operation, Johnson points out, did not even begin to cripple Iran’s ability to respond—retaliation came within ten hours. “This is a second bite at the apple,” Johnson points out.
The intelligence puzzle
What accounts for the differing conclusions? While both analyses agree that the variables at play are the hawkish stance of Mr Trump, the deterrent capacity of Iran, the interests of Israel, and the impossibility of regime change, they reach differing conclusions as to the timing and likelihood of such a war.
Mearsheimer’s conclusions are based on rational actor theory, which holds that the impossibility of military action and the catastrophic consequences will ultimately dictate actors’ behaviour. Johnson and McGovern’s conclusions are based on inside information, in which the momentum of the situation has overtaken the actors’ ability to think rationally and strategically.
The implications of this analytical discord are significant, as the consequences of a war with Iran will be catastrophic, not just to the Middle East, but to the world at large, as such a war has the potential to create a world-wide economic crisis, as well as the potential to draw in Russia and China, as their interests in the oil fields of Iran are considerable.
The question that the interested observer must ask is which interpretation of the same intelligence should be believed? The professor, who believes that the strategic paralysis that will dictate the actions of the actors is the military impossibility of such a strike, or the intelligence veterans, who believe that there is an inexorable momentum to the coming conflict, one that no one can control once it is initiated?
The answer to this question will determine whether the coming weeks will bring tense diplomatic manoeuvring or the outbreak of the most significant Middle Eastern conflict in decades. What is certain is that the results of either a limited face-saving strike or the coming comprehensive war will be felt far beyond the Persian Gulf.
OPINION: The Epstein Files: Blackmail, power, and geopolitical shadows
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.