Rowing in a swamp!

If you’ve noticed, the war between the US and Israel with Iran has turned into a “narrative war” or a “perception war.” There is no strategic victory on the horizon, but US President Trump keeps saying he has won a great victory. In fact, he says even this great victory is not enough and he wants more. It seems that Trump’s behavior is largely related to domestic politics.

A tug-of-war is going on between the US and Iran. It is a race of “who can endure more pain.” Who will give up first? Who will blink first? Trump expects Iran to give up. Iran, meanwhile, is testing America’s endurance by closing the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic lever.

The economic side effects of closing the Strait of Hormuz are a matter of close concern not only to the US but to the whole world. Not to mention the damage that the combination of these side effects would cause if the Houthi forces in Yemen were to close the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

The current situation shows that the results the US has achieved have diverged from the results it hoped for. Expecting an easy surrender, the US has achieved tactical military successes but has lost strategically. Like rowing in a swamp, the US can neither move forward nor turn back.

Carl von Clausewitz, one of the classic masters of military strategy, said: “Do not take the first step without thinking about the last step.” Trump must have deluded himself that the first step was enough for victory. Yet war, once it begins, takes on a different face. That face is constantly changing. Like “Proteus” in ancient Greek mythology, it slips through your fingers by turning into something else the moment you grasp it.

In fact, Trump is repeating the weaknesses that US presidents displayed in America’s wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere. Although the US played a destructive role in those wars, it failed to achieve the political outcomes it put forward. Those administrations, by avoiding acceptance of losses and continuing to escalate, caused even greater losses. American administrations’ “zero-sum, decisive victory fallacy” also marked their negotiations with combatant forces. It appears that Trump has fallen into the same fallacy.

There is a saying: “Americans will do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted all the bad options.” The previous war presidents also did the right thing after exhausting all the bad options—because no other option remained. That is what happened in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan.

War is not something that can be characterized as “all or nothing.” Wars that are not based on realistic political and military goals can turn into a quagmire for those who start them. And the human damage caused by the dangerous belief that decisive victory can be achieved through military success alone is irreparable.

One of the factors that played a role in Barack Obama’s winning the 2008 election was his promise to end the Iraq War. The American public wanted US troops to withdraw from Iraq. Obama chose this public demand as one of the main pillars of his campaign.

Trump is not stupid; he knows that the American public wants this war, launched for Israel’s interests, to end. However, Trump is not the kind of person who can stomach a withdrawal. Despite convincing signs that the strategy for the Iran war is not working, he prefers to take risks. His prejudice regarding American power also encourages Trump’s gamble.

On the other hand, Trump is under pressure from the Israel Lobby and affiliated circles. Likewise, one should not forget that Trump is surrounded by hawks who argue that the war should continue as long as the costs are bearable. Trump’s declaration that the costs of the war are bearable for Americans and that Iran has nearly collapsed is merely rhetoric.

The damage caused by the political consequences of the US’s slow abandonment of losing strategies in previous wars is still being debated. Realistic foreign policy experts argue that a state at war will adopt the strategies with the highest probability of success and will take advantage of conflict situations when the benefits outweigh the costs. In the opposite situation, states should quickly abandon a losing strategy.

The “zero-sum decisive victory assumption” is part of American military culture. This bias-based assumption combines with the blind faith that the US can solve any problem anywhere in the world. It is this assumption that motivates the US to intervene in conflicts where winning is impossible or to pursue strategies with a low chance of success. As the case of Iran shows, the US continues to learn the right option the hard way.