Richard Haass: Trump Fears the Consequences of War with Iran

Tehran - BORNA - Richard Haass—a well-known American international affairs expert and former president of the Council on Foreign Relations—examined the recent U.S. military posture around Iran in a post published on his blog.

“The U.S. military has deployed a significant amount of force near Iran,” Haass wrote. “What the objective is remains unclear. So far, there is little evidence that pouring this level of firepower into the Middle East has persuaded Iran to surrender what remains of its not-fully-eliminated nuclear program.”

Risks of Escalation

Haass warned of the serious consequences of a potential war with Iran for the United States.

“If coercion fails, what happens next?” he asked. “Israel is eager, either alongside the United States or independently, to strike Iran’s ballistic missile stockpiles. The risk, however, is that Iran would retaliate by targeting U.S. forces in the region, Israel, shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, or oil facilities across the Middle East.”

He added that if Iran were to respond militarily, oil prices—which rose by 10 percent last week but remain below their level of a year ago—could surge dramatically.

Political and Strategic Concerns

Haass suggested that Trump would be reluctant to face such a scenario, particularly given domestic political considerations.

“I suspect the president does not want to see this outcome, especially when purchasing power is a primary concern for Americans and congressional midterm elections are only nine months away,” he wrote. “For political reasons—and for strategic ones as well—he is inclined to avoid a prolonged war with Iran. In such a war, Iran’s staying power could well exceed that of the United States.”

Haass further warned that the United States could ultimately face a “costly humiliation.”

“The question is whether we would then be prepared to retreat and accept an agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program—one we are currently unwilling to accept. That would amount to a costly humiliation for the United States,” he stated.

Regime Change Uncertain

Haass also dismissed threats of destabilizing or changing Iran’s political system through war as hollow.

“It is unclear what effect a war—regardless of its duration or scale—would have on the survival of Iran’s political system,” he wrote. “It could just as easily strengthen the regime. And even if the system were to collapse, we have no idea what might replace it.”

He emphasized that he sees no clear linkage between the tools being considered and the stated objectives of U.S. policy.

“There is no justification for military action against Iran,” Haass argued. “There has been no new Iranian threat to U.S. interests that would necessitate a military response.”

He also noted the absence of both a publicly articulated strategy and meaningful congressional oversight.

“In a similar situation, we would expect public debate. Yet we have not heard anyone make the case that the current path being pursued toward Iran is wise,” he wrote.

Lessons from Past Wars

In concluding his critique of Trump, Haass argued that the former president appears to believe that the perceived success of limited intervention in Venezuela grants him license to act similarly elsewhere, assuming that the United States will always prevail.

“While success is always possible, everyone should understand that the scenario now under consideration amounts to launching yet another war of choice in a region where previous wars of choice—such as the 2003 war in Iraq and the 2011 intervention in Libya—produced disastrous outcomes,” Haass warned. “Such a course would represent a grave, unnecessary, and ill-considered risk.”

End Article