Trump is Trapped

Reuters is reporting this morning of Iran's openness to new talks with the U.S. if Trump is willing to lift sanctions and sweeten the JCPOA (so basically a non-starter). Pompeo is in Saudi Arabia conferring with the administration's closest ally, likely apologizing for Trump's aborted strike. The definitive write-up of last week's almost-war with Iran is Andre Damon's "Minutes to disaster: Lessons to be learned from the confrontation with Iran":

The strikes against Iran would likely have been carried out by the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and its associated battle group, consisting of at least three destroyers and one cruiser. But under these conditions, the US military was forced to see these ships not just as military assets, but as liabilities. What would be the consequences of Iran sinking a $2 billion destroyer and killing a substantial portion of its nearly 300 crew?

If Iran sank the Nimitz-class carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with 5,000 sailors and airmen aboard, the consequences would be incalculable.

As a former member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards told the Times, “What happened in the past 48 hours was extremely important in showing Iran’s strength and forcing the U.S. to recalculate… No matter how you look at it, Iran won.”

As Mohammad Marandi explained on Democracy Now! Friday:

But also, I’d like to point one other thing out. And that is, if indeed a military conflict is inevitable between the United States and Iran, I think there are two important things that have to be kept in mind. First, if there is a war, then, in my opinion, all of the oil and gas facilities, as well as the tankers in the Persian Gulf region, will be destroyed. This will not be just the issue of closing the Strait of Hormuz. This will be something very long-term. And that will lead to a global economic catastrophe unlike anything we’ve seen in contemporary history. In addition to that, Iranian allies across the region will engage U.S. forces and U.S. allies militarily, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. And then you would have the Saudi and Emirati regimes collapse immediately, because they’re completely dependent on oil. And millions of people will be on the move. So, that’s a scenario that is just something that people should not even contemplate.

The second is that the United States may carry out a small strike. Here, I think, is almost equally dangerous, because I think that there are some so-called Iran experts in the United States that are telling the U.S. government that if you carry out a limited strike, Iran will do nothing in response, or there will be just some token response. That is a major miscalculation. The Iranians will be relentless in their response. They will probably be very disproportionate, as well. And they will also strike those regional countries that are allowing—that would allow the Americans to attack. And the reason why the Iranians would respond so severely is that they want to make sure that the United States does not come to any conclusion that they could repeatedly attack Iran. And this, of course, could lead to further and further escalation. So, it would be against the interests of the whole of the international community, as well as the people of the United States, to even contemplate any strike, even limited.

Trump figured this out in the nick of time. Iran is not going to be a static target like Syria. Iran will escalate. The country is being suffocated with sanctions.

There are other vital issues in play here, Trump's hope for reelection for one. Initiating a war with Iran at the behest of unpopular allies and neocons guarantees Trump's defeat. He knows that. Bannon was quoted saying as much. This means that Pompeo is likely in the kingdom telling the royal family that it is going to have to be sanctions and cyber war until Trump's reelection. Al-Saud is not going to like this.

Another problem for the administration is Yemen. Sunday there was another drone attack on a Saudi airport by the Houthis. (For a list of the recent Houthi strikes on Saudi Arabia, see Caleb Weiss's story.)

The Saudis and Israelis, who are guiding U.S. policy through the administration's neocons, don't want a renegotiated JCPOA; they want regime change. The problem is that Trump will not be reelected if war with Iran is launched now. Trump is boxed. He can't deliver regime change for his paymasters and win reelection, and, as Houthi hostilities in Saudi Arabia increase and the U.S. Senate blocks armament transfers to al-Saud, Trump is forced to use his veto on behalf of an enormously unpopular war, spotlighting his abject servitude to the sheikhs.

Trump is trapped.