Anti-US painting in Tehran: Iran's war brings back to Washington the question of wars that begin with decisiveness and then prolong their cost (French)
Afrasianet - Saja Yasser - Years ago, Donald Trump attacked his predecessor's exit from Afghanistan as a "failed withdrawal" and a "massive impotence."
Today, as his war on Iran drags on, the specter of Kabul returns to the American debate as a warning of the path that Washington begins in the name of decisiveness and then discovers that it is harder to get out of it than to get into.
The Guardian captures this paradox from the anniversary of the chaotic US withdrawal from Kabul, after a two-decade war that ended with the Taliban's return to power.
According to the newspaper, Afghanistan has become synonymous with uncalculated Western intervention and nation-building by force, and the clearest example of the so-called "eternal war."
Lesson Kabul
The lesson that was supposed to remain from Afghanistan is clear: no open war with no apparent justification, no achievable goals, no exit plan.
But this lesson was repeated in Iraq, and then again today in Iran, where Trump entered a war that he initially described as a "small round," so that it reaches its sixth month and expands instead of ending.
Carter Malkasian, a professor at the National War College and a former civilian adviser to U.S. forces in Helmand and Kabul, says the assumption that kept U.S. troops in Afghanistan for 20 years was fundamentally flawed: the fear that the country would return as a haven for international terrorism.
According to him, Washington has spent about $1 trillion and deployed more than 775,000 military personnel in defense of a threat that later turned out to be exaggerated.
Hence the Guardian's comparison with Iran. It says that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have exaggerated their portrayal of the Iranian threat as imminent and existential, adding that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and that there is no solid evidence that it is currently trying or has recently tried to acquire it.
Demonstrators in Boston against the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran (French)
A war without a way out
The Guardian adds that US-led wars turn into quagmire when diplomacy declines, effective international mediation is absent, and the bet on power continues despite the military horizon being blocked.
In Trump's case, the personal pride factor exacerbates the impasse: the president, reading it, looks like trying to bomb for a way out, while at the same time searching for a deal that can be marketed internally as a victory.
The British newspaper The Independent picks up the concern from a different angle, through the statements of broadcaster Joe Rogan, who endorsed Trump on the eve of the 2024 election before later criticizing him in several files.
The newspaper quotes him as saying that the war on Iran has no "clear path" to the end, and that the U.S. attack has made the United States less secure because it has given Iran a reason to respond.
Investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen has called the war "terrible" and "unnecessary," while Rogan and Jacobsen criticize the focus on the financial cost of the war rather than its human cost.
U.S. Sergeant Angel Rampersaud's funeral in New York (Associated Press)
The Pentagon said 18 U.S. military personnel had been killed and hundreds wounded, while Reuters reported that 3,636 people had been killed in Iran as of March, nearly half of them civilians, according to a rights group.
Papers that are falling back
The British newspaper iPepper presents the scene from the perspective of the political balance of power. It says that Trump has bet everything on Iran, but he has become the "weakest player," after repeated threats and then last-minute retreats, with no clear indication of an imminent diplomatic breakthrough.
The newspaper quotes a Saudi statement that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in a call with Trump, stressed the priority of dialogue to de-escalate.
An analyst at the Atlantic Council also quotes that Riyadh's message to Washington has become clearer: Any large-scale U.S. strikes on Iran's energy facilities will put Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states at the forefront of those affected.
According to iPepper, maintaining regional stability has become a higher priority for Gulf leaders than seeking a decisive confrontation with Tehran.
Iran's retention of capabilities to threaten its neighbors, the complexities of the Strait of Hormuz, and mounting concern about the expansion of the war have narrowed Trump's room for maneuver, as the U.S. president acknowledged that weapons stockpiles are dwindling after five months of conflict with no clear outcome.
Iran has brought Trump more political trouble, based on polls revealing that only 28% of Americans approve of his handling of the conflict, and only 21% support his handling of rising gasoline prices.
In a remarkable summary, iPaper says that Trump, who 17 months ago rebuked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office and accused him of not having the power to win his country's war, received the same message this time from Riyadh on Iran, but more forcefully because, in reading the paper, it seems to be true.
US President Donald Trump is using the strategy of "hard pressure" after announcing two days ago the suspension of a major military operation against Iran to make room for diplomacy, but this strategy faces a real challenge with the Iranian regime, which has been able to adapt to it in many ways.
In a report on President Trump's current strategy for the war on Iran, the Associated Press believes that there is nothing new in this regard, as Trump has already resorted to this strategy during the five-month war.
The strategy begins with a stern warning to Tehran that it is about to order U.S. forces to "destroy" power plants or seize key parts of its oil industry if its leaders do not quickly agree to U.S. terms to end the war, and ends with a last-minute withdrawal, sometimes at the request of Gulf allies, declaring that it will give diplomacy more time.
The high-pressure strategy, which Trump has honed during his years in the New York real estate market and used in politics, aims to advance negotiations through pressure and chaos. But this strategy faces a challenge from the Iranian regime, which believes it bears a greater strategic burden than Washington.
While Trump boasts of the U.S. military's success in crushing layers of Iran's leadership and destroying its air and naval forces, Iran is betting on its ability to stand up to Trump as his stockpiles dwindle and the difficulty of waging a war unpopular with U.S. voters ahead of November's midterm elections.
The latest episode began last Friday when Trump, surrounded by members of his cabinet, declared in a sharp tone that he was "losing confidence" in negotiations with Iran and warned that the U.S. military would "deal them very hard blows."
Hours later, White House spokeswoman Carolyn Levitt intensified speculation in Washington and around the world with an ominous statement, asserting that "Iran will continue to pay the price until it sits down to the negotiating table in a way that President Trump sees as feasible."
But by late Saturday night, Trump announced on social media that there were signs of progress toward a deal, and that he had canceled a plan for new large-scale strikes for now.
The next day, Trump asserted that requests for more diplomatic time from unnamed Iranian officials, as well as the leaders of Gulf allies — Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — were key to his abrupt retreat.
Speaking to reporters on his way back to Washington from a weekend at his New Jersey golf club, Trump said: "That would have been disastrous for them. They did not want us to do that. Frankly, Saudi Arabia didn't want that either. They thought an agreement was imminent."
Frequency Significance
Trump speaks to reporters aboard the presidential plane (Associated Press)
Observers believe that Trump is seeking to reset things in this context. Trump may eventually come to the conclusion that a major escalation in the conflict with Iran is necessary.
But others say his reluctance may also reflect an implicit understanding within the administration that U.S. military power alone may not be enough to force Iran back down and end a months-long war, which Trump has previously downplayed as just a weeks-long outing.
Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" that "I think what we're seeing here is a president who is taking a very volatile approach. He is now trying to get us back to where we were last February. I think if he could, or if he had a big reset button, he would certainly have chosen that option."
Stir
The conflict period saw several moments when Trump showed his penchant for aggression, then backed down at the last minute, declaring that his threats had spurred progress.
In early April, the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire, in an announcement made less than two hours before Trump's deadline for Tehran to surrender or face attacks on bridges and power plants, strikes that he said would mean "the demise of an entire civilization."
After days of serious threats against Iran, Trump announced on May 18 that he would postpone a major military strike he had planned because of "serious negotiations" underway, praising his Gulf allies for persuading him to show restraint.
Then, in June, Trump threatened to strike Iran "very hard" and seize Iran's energy base on Kharg Island to "take full control of the oil and gas markets," he wrote on social media, before cancelling the strikes in a subsequent post after claiming that peace negotiations had made progress with senior Iranian leaders.
What Trump has not stated is that such an effort would require the presence of U.S. ground troops in Iran, which is politically risky for a president who has campaigned on the basis of avoiding foreign affairs and criticized previous administrations for engaging in endless wars.
In this latest episode, Trump hinted that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman played a crucial role in his retreat from the escalation of the confrontation.
Electoral calculations
With Trump's threat of escalation, Republicans are facing a sharp decline in the polls. Trump has insisted that November's midterm elections do not affect his approach to the conflict, which has sparked global economic concern, but that is certainly a concern for his fellow Republicans.
An Associated Press-Nork poll published last week found that nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults believe that the war with Iran, which began on Feb. 28, has been futile. That includes the vast majority of Democrats and independents, as well as about 37 percent of Republicans.
One of Trump's most prominent allies in Congress on Sunday suggested the need for the U.S. administration to adjust its approach to Iran.
In televised remarks, Senator John F. Kennedy of Louisiana said that "the debate in Washington has overlooked the extent of the devastation that the U.S. military has inflicted on Iran since the beginning of the war." However, the Republican lawmaker acknowledged that an escalation of the conflict could lead to a sharp rise in already high energy prices and "significant inflation on the American people."
Kennedy said tightening sanctions and targeting Iran's nuclear program — rather than escalating the conflict — might be the best option for now. "These are all very difficult choices, but I would keep the status quo for now," he concluded.
________________
