Mark Wauck: Mearsheimer: Optimist Or Pessimist?

As soon as Trump submitted to the surrender terms that Iran presented to him in the MOU that he was required to sign, he immediately began trying to wriggle out of the MOU. He began insisting that the US had the right to set up its own route through the Strait of Hormuz; he tried to back out of the requirement to shut down Israel’s war in Lebanon; and he tried to talk the Iranian negotiators into discussing nuclear issues before complying with the MOU—as well as misrepresenting the Iranian position on those issues. Now, it happens that the Iranian negotiators may have contributed to some of that confusion, but the IRGC clarified all that—most recently by striking five ships that had tried, at US instigation, to ignore the Iranian regime in the strait.

What happened next was that Trump began striking at Iran again—violating the MOU and the ceasefire. And Iran retaliated. But the US strikes seem to have come to an end, as of last night. For the time being. The cessation of US strikes was accompanied by the usual childish Trumpian insults directed at Iran and Iranians. Larry Johnson suggested that Trump’s over the top rhetorical reaction was a typical sign from Trump that the Iranian retaliation had been extremely heavy and effective—Trump’s complaint that Iranians are “violent” certainly lends credibllity to that suggestion.

That brings us to this morning. Two things happened. First, Trump claimed that Iran had called him, basically begging for talks. Trump magnanimously stated that he was OK with continuing talks but that the ceasefire was definitely over. Second, the two US aircraft carriers in the region (Bush and Lincoln) sailed into the Gulf of Oman—well within Iranian missile range and without their air defense escort ships.

John Mearsheimer, speaking with Danny Davis, addressed these events. First, he reiterated that his long held view was that Trump’s only viable course of action to avoid massive strategic humiliation and economic chaos is to sign the MOU and accept defeat. Trump has signed the MOU, but can’t seem to swallow accepting defeat. Second, Mearsheimer stated that the correct understanding of Trumpspeak is that, when Trump says the Iranians want to talk to him, that means that he wants to talk to them. In other words, Trump has been forced to recognize that the recent events are just one more in a fairly long string of failed attempts to wriggle out of accepting defeat and presenting the appearance of a victory. The moves by the two unprotected carriers were just another bit of theater.

So far, so good. But expecting Trump to follow through on any of his commitments is a fool’s errand, and there aren’t many fools in Tehran. So, for the time being, Trump may actually be toying with the option of withdrawing—despite his talk of going back to his failed blockade strategy. Another possible sign that Trump is seriously considering the opt out is that the Israelis have once again deployed their “Iranian assassination plot” gag to try to bring Trump back in line.

Mearsheimer finishes on a pessimistic note. He calls up the example of Vietnam. When Johnson bowed out it was clear that he knew he had lost the war. But Nixon and Kissinger spent years trying to find some clever way to win the war. It didn’t work, but it does look like the same dynamic could be at play with Trump—once a modern state gets into a war it’s well-nigh impossible to simply call it quits. And especially not when that involves a surrender of hegemony.

So there we are. Trump goosed the markets on Friday—that much is clear. It remains to be seen how the rest works out.

I’ll close with some relevant remarks that Doug Macgregor made today to Glenn Diesen. Excerpts:

I don’t think President Trump has any idea how dangerous his statements are and how foolish he looks in front of the world and how easily he’s being manipulated by the wrong people.

It’s this parent child relationship that Trump attempts to establish everywhere he goes with everyone and the rest of the world, you know. ‘Well, I told them they have a chance and they want a deal. Well, if they want a deal, they’ll have to do what I say.’

‘Oh, the Iranians are desperate. They want a deal.’ Well, guess what? The Iranians are on a full war footing. Are we? No. And if you’re going to fight them in the region where they live on their doorstep, you better think long and hard about what that means because you’re in for a long fight in a real war. And again, we’re not prepared for that. I don’t give a damn what he says publicly. We’re not. You know, the Navy has now admitted that they have more launchers and more tubes for missiles than they have missiles to fire. He’s out in the open.

This is a Jewish war waged against Iran. I say ‘Jewish’ because it’s by no means exclusively Israeli. It involves the Jewish lobby here in the United States and the massive numbers of billionaires that constitute the backbone of it. They effectively own—lock, stock, and barrel—not just Donald Trump, but the Hill. Mr. Netanyahu when he embarked on this war. This was a war to the finish, he was talking in effectively from the very beginning in scorched earth terms.

Or is this again just talk? Well, you remember the operation in Isfahan where we tried to insert special operations forces with considerable air support and expertise from the CIA and so forth on the grounds that they were within range of plutonium that could be I guess acquired and then spirited out of the country. That ended in disaster. It was covered or concealed, if you will, by this supposed officer who had been shot down that had to be recovered. That was kind of a cover story. And what we discovered was that, in a part of Iran where we thought they would be vulnerable, they didn’t turn out to be vulnerable. And so once again, it was a question of have we underestimated the regime? Have we underestimated the military establishment, its various systems, human and remote? Well, I guess we did. And I think a number of people said—in fact, I know they did—they were grateful that this happened because it put an end to Trump’s fantasy that we could replicate what we did in Venezuela.

You do have people that have talked about Chabahar–seizing that port, because it’s outside of the Gulf, on the theory that if you gained control of Chabahar that would give you leverage over Iran. I haven’t quite figured out what that leverage is, strategically. I think the Iranians would probably take the Russian position. ‘Well, if they’re going to seize Chabahar, we’ll defend it if we can, but if we can’t, we’ll make sure they seize nothing.’ So then are you going to use the ruins of Chabahar as your launchpad for penetrating Iranian airspace once again, with helicopters and B2s, to take control of, say, Bandar Abbas? Or are you going to try to fly from the UAE right across the Gulf? I think everybody’s saying, ‘Wait a minute!’ If you’re looking for something clean, decisive, and effective, this may not be a good option. But I don’t know who’s there. You’ve listened to General Kellogg and General Keane. I think they would probably support any of those options. I don’t know. I assume so. They’ll do whatever in order to widen this war in the hopes that by doing so they can bring Iran to its knees. I don’t see that happening.