I predict this will have devastating consequences for his administration and America’s standing
Ian Proud was a member of His Britannic Majesty’s Diplomatic Service from 1999 to 2023. He served as the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to February 2019. He recently published his memoir, “A Misfit in Moscow: How British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019,” and is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute.
Cross-posted from Ian’s Substack “The Peacemaker”
By not securing a decisive victory in Iran, Donald Trump will have failed and be seen to have failed. This will be devastating for his political standing at home and the reputation of America abroad.
I assess this will lead to the Republicans losing control of both houses in the November mid-terms, a lame duck President Trump coming under pressure to stand-aside, which he will resist, becoming increasingly unpopular, and therefore resulting in a Democrat Presidential victory in 2028.
Further proof, that foreign policy always stands and falls on domestic concerns.
In announcing the US war on Iran, Donald Trump said that ‘our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime. He went on to address the ‘great proud people of Iran’ and say that ‘tonight the hour of your freedom is at hand’.
If we unpack his statement, firstly, the claim to be defending American people who may be caught in the backwash of future terrorist attacks against American interests, and who may suffer the economic consequences of a possible prolonged stand-off in the middle east appears hollow and ill-thought through as best. The US has no real core strategic interest in toppling the government in Iran.
Second, there is no evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat to US interests either at home or abroad. Just four days ago, Rafael Grossi, the Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that there is ‘no evidence that Iran is currently building a nuclear bomb’ even though it has a large stockpile of enriched uranium. A failure of the US war against Iran that leaves the existing regime in place, which appears highly likely, may well encourage Iran in future to pursue a nuclear weapon, as North Korea has, to deter future aggression.
Third, Iranian people have not risen up as planned. Trump’s appeal to Iranian citizens to ‘take over your government, it will be yours to take’ has not led to a revolution. Some Iranians have chosen to leave the country, but we have not seen a Syria-style exodus. Most Iranians have chosen to stay in their country. Large crowds have come out in support of the regime, even though western press continues to find talking heads who celebrate the killing of Khamenei.
So if we assess Trump’s stated purpose for this operation, it rests of two claims which history will show not to be true, and on a belief in the outcomes of US military action – that it would precipitate an Iranian revolution – that was deluded and which lays bare the weak strategic analysis underpinning US action.
I therefore predict the following:
– Whether it stops now or stops later, the US will not be able to declare a decisive military victory against Iran. Rather it will be seen as an epic failure;
– That the Republican party will lose the mid-term elections in November badly handing control of both houses of the Democrats;
– That the fallout from the Iran war and growing concerns about his health may generate pressure for Trump to abdicate his Presidency and anoint JD Vance, though he will refuse to go;
– That the Democrats will win the 2028 Presidential election.
Those predictions remain the same whether the US decides to off-ramp now or to continue fighting Iran for a few more weeks.
Why? Because a US climb-down now will make Trump look weak in the face of a much smaller Iran damaging his image at home. And because a continued war which does not deliver a decisive victory will reveal the fragility of US military power making Trump look rash and incompetent, especially if US casualties rise, damaging his image at home and shattering support from his MAGA base.
Having committed to battle, the only choice now is when to stop. And in neither scenario, stop now or stop later, can Trump emerge as a victor.
Why does a decisive military victory against Iran look unlikely?
Iran is a regime not a government. As increasing numbers of analysts have pointed out, the US decapitation strike to kill Khamenei rested on the false assumption that he was the sole, absolute source of power in the Iranian regime and that his removal would lead to a collapse of the system of government, allowing for a citizen uprising. However, the Iranian regime is a complex and extensive political system of theocratic control with nation-wide reach and an ability to manage compliance through a loyal and ruthless security apparatus. It was always obvious that as one leader was killed, so another would step up to take his place.
Indeed, this was also proved during the 12 day war in with Israel. Then, at least 60 senior figures were killed by targeted Israeli strikes, including the commander-in-chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards together with senior nuclear scientists. They were all replaced. As senior IRGC figures have been killed this time around they, too, will be replaced. Ayatollah Khamenei appears likely to be replaced by his son, who is also considered a so-called hardliner. However much longer this war continues, the ruling apparatus in Iran will remain completely unchanged. The USA and Israel will fail to deliver regime change.
A false assumption about regime change shaped the limited US military footprint. The mistaken belief that America could bomb its way to victory dictated its limited military footprint in this war. Despite the apparent might of two deployed carrier strike groups in the region, it was always obvious that this would never be enough to topple the Iranian authorities. This deployment is dwarfed by a considerable margin, by the scale of US and coalition forces involved in the 1991 Gulf War and in the 2003 war in Iraq, both of which also involved a vast army deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops deployed over a period of several months in advance. Looking tough is not the same as deploying the capabilities you need to secure overwhelming victory, far from home, and dependant on a supply chain in terms of munitions and men, that is shaky.
The Iranians are winning the strategic game. A lack of clear strategy led the Americans to assume a linear Iranian response and planners failed to predict the region wide Iranian missile strikes which have already choked the Straits of Hormuz to vital energy trade and started to radicalise Gulf States against US military occupation. Even today, Iran is working hard not to alienate Gulf States too much, striking a delicate balancing act with President Pezeshkian apologising to Gulf partners, and situating Iranian actions as purely defensive, an argument that the Americans cannot sustain as the attacker. They say in the military that no plan survives contact with the enemy. In this case, I don’t think America had a credible plan and they will suffer under the law of unintended consequences.
Why will the American hit a brick wall?
Because the US has no viable military strategy to escalate and so has committed to a war that it cannot win and, whatever destructions it wreaks on Iran, that will make it look like a failure given its inability to declare victory in absolute and verifiable terms.
The US Academic Professor Robert Pape from the University of Chicago, has gone viral on X with his posts about the ineffectiveness of bombing campaigns to secure regime change. In circumstances where missile strikes on Iran will not deliver regime change, the only way to escalate is boots on the ground, which would also not succeed.
It would not succeed firstly, because it would take the US months to deliver it. Boots on the ground is not something that can happen over-night. It would take at least six months. In the knowledge of a ground force escalation, Iran would have ever greater motivation to continue its retaliatory missile strikes against Gulf States and other countries seen as supporting the US.
Secondly, the US does not have sufficient troops to mount a credible occupation of Iran, a geographically large country with a population of 92 million people, more than twice the population of Iraq. In Iraq, having successful toppled the Saddam Hussein government, the large US military presence of up to 170,000 troops supported by allies such as Britain which deployed 46,000 troops. This time, the US would be going it alone without allied support, in a much larger country, having to fight its way in and dominate against a much tougher regime opponent. It would not succeed.
In any case, the Iraq war was also considered to be an enormous failure, which radicalised the country, spawned the ISIS terror group and led to scandals such as the Abu Ghraib prisoner torture scandal. More likely, a US military boots on ground war against Iran would fail, revealing the US as a weakened global military giant and sending a signal to China, its main peer competitor, that it offered a reduced threat in the Asia Pacific region.
Third, the US cannot afford a deployed war, with its national debt now enormous. The 2003 Iraq war is estimated to have cost between 1.8 and 3 trillion US dollars. This war would likely cost much more. It would also put intolerable pressure on America’s bloated and sclerotic military industrial complex to supply the weapons and material needed to sustain an extended war. The Wall Street Journal has already reported that the US risks running out of its most sophisticated ammunition stocks, which have been worn down by four years of war in Ukraine and the failed campaign against the Houthis.
Trump met top US defence contractors on 6 March to discuss accelerating production. They will be making gigantic profits out of this latest war and undoubtedly will have promised the world. Yet it is far from clear that they will be able to save the oligarch President’s blushes with a sudden tidal wave of supplies. That has not been possible for Ukraine, it won’t be possible for Iran. The US military industrial complex is simply too cumbersome and inefficient.
Fourthly, defence favours the home team. Rather than mobilising resistance inside of Iran, as we have always seen, a war of aggression by a foreign power tends to have the opposite effect, in radicalising domestic support around the sitting regime. This certainly happened in Ukraine which mounted a strong defence of its territory and has performed way above expectations, despite the war having carried on for far longer than it should have. With few Iranians having left he country and with hundreds of thousands coming out in support of the regime, it is clear that, rather than promoting regime change, US military action will simply mobilise the population against America.
Fifth, it would not succeed because political pressure on the US from foreign nations would grow louder. Ongoing war would continue to shatter long-standing military alliances between the US and Gulf Partners applying pressure to evict US military bases.
Sixth, with the Strait of Hormuz blocked, this would have devastating consequences for the global economy, with the European Union particularly hard hit given the war in Ukraine and the cut off of energy from Russia. Where the Spanish and Italians have criticised the US already, other European governments would follow suit. Support for US basing in European NATO countries would come under domestic political pressure and protests to refuse access. America would find itself with fewer global friends in a time of sharp economic decline.
Finally, the war in Iran is already proving deeply unpopular with American people. A PBS poll showed 56% of Americans disapproved of the strikes on Iran and 54% disapproved of Trump’s handling of the campaign. A Washington Post poll showed 52% opposed the strikes. An average of 8 high quality US polls showed 49% against and 38% in favour. Critically, there is no historical US precedent for a war being this unpopular from the outset. In the shadows of 9-11, the war against Afghanistan started with 90% approval. Gallup measured approval for the 2003 Iraq war at 76% and Pew at 71%. However, by 2019, 62% percent of Americans and 58% of Iraq combat veterans judged that the Iraq war had not been worth fighting. That’s not far from where the Iran numbers are today.
The Iraq war also led to blowout wins for the Democrats in the 2006 midterms and ushered in Barak Obama as Democrat President, who wound down the operation. The 2006 midterms happened three years after the Iraq war started, so it is impossible to make a direct comparison with the 2026 midterms which will take place in November. However, the signs are already ominous.
Be the first to comment