War with Iran: Trump’s Zero-Sum Game

Many Democrats, and even some MAGA Republicans, have stated that President Trump should end the war with Iran; however, that would be a catastrophic mistake. If the U.S. withdraws from the conflict, the U.S. will lose credibility and strength. The U.S. will afterwards be operating from a position of weakness that only another war with an adversary that is perceived as more powerful than Iran – and only one from which the U.S. triumphs – would enable the U.S. to regain the credibility and position of strength that it previously had.

The U.S. lost a certain amount of that credibility when then-President Obama drew the red line with Syria and then failed to act when that line was crossed. If the U.S. withdraws from the war on Iran, it will be a loss, as Trump intends regime change. And Trump has stated how he feels about losers. Not only would such a loss damage the U.S. global position on deterrence, but would also serve as vindication for the Democrats in the U.S. and the critics, both domestic and abroad, who have stated that Trump acts rashly and without thought and that he is not suited for the presidency.

Worst still is the fact that the Iranian regime would be bolstered and would gain both credibility and strength from a failed attack by Israel and the United States. President Trump has declared the objective of this operation to be regime change. Therefore, anything short of that would be a failure for the U.S. and a victory for the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei would be able to say that Iran – and particularly this regime – was able to withstand the massive attacks by the U.S. and Israel. It would have an effect similar to Iran’s potential development and possession of nuclear weapons. Mojtaba, who is a hard-liner and more anti-U.S. than his father, would be able to say that if the U.S., with all its military might, could not overthrow the regime, then nothing can. Therefore, why would Iran not pursue nuclear weapons again? Why would they not still support and rebuild the much-diminished proxy terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas? The ability of the U.S. and Israel to contain the Iranian regime through threats would be long gone.

For the IRI, regime survival is all that is required to win, and such a win would likely not only remove the ability for the U.S. to use deterrence but would also provide legitimacy to the regime. The factions within the regime might even unite. Thus, such a win could move the reformists from thinking that in order to survive, the regime must engage in some compromises with the U.S., to instead thinking like the hard-liners that no such compromise is necessary. Furthermore, the ability of Iran to win against such a superpower might indicate that Islamism is the correct path. The magnitude of this victory for Iran has the potential to unite the factions in the IRI regime and even increase support among the population. Moreover, it has been assumed that if the U.S. wanted to overthrow the regime, it could. This would nullify that perspective. If the U.S., the global superpower, could not do so, then no one could.

The overwhelming majority of the Iranian people who have been fighting against the regime and protesting periodically for decades might think that there is no longer any point in protesting and fighting against a regime that cannot be defeated. The internal and external ramifications of a U.S. loss and an IRI win are too catastrophic to withstand. The regional balance of power would change for the worse for America’s allies, such as Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. The world will be worse off than it was prior to the attacks on Iran. Therefore, the only solution is to be all in. Trump must engage in boots on the ground at such a level to ensure success.

Winning the war means overthrowing the regime, and it seems that bombing alone will not be sufficient to achieve that objective. Unfortunately, boots on the ground will be required. This will not receive popular support from Americans. Boots on the ground has not been a popular tactic since Iraq and Afghanistan, but in this case, it seems the only viable option for Trump, who now finds himself playing a zero-sum game. The IRI is an oligarchy made up of many groups with many players. Simply killing the Supreme Leader is not enough to topple the regime. The players are replaceable. To decimate the IRI would require bombing civilian areas and high collateral damage. Unfortunately, through simply bombing, there is no clear path to overthrow the regime or regime change without high Iranian civilian loss from bombs. And since the Iranian people by and large love Americans, killing them to achieve the goal might instead be a Pyrrhic victory.

The post War with Iran: Trump’s Zero-Sum Game appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.