Iran’s Lost Advantage

By muratart @Adobe Stock

Comeuppance 

For half a century, Iran has been killing Americans, promising death to the U.S. and Israel, and attempting to murder a U.S. president. In American Greatness, Victor Davis Hanson acknowledges that the long-overdue message to Iran is that there are consequences.

President Trump’s critics accuse Trump of deviating from past presidents’ “heroic, peaceful efforts” to negotiate an end to the Iranian nuclear threat. After Trump assumed office, President Trump was apprised that “Iran was weeks away from getting a bomb.”

After all of President Joe Biden’s heroic diplomatic efforts, why hadn’t the Iranian nuclear program ended during that administration’s last four years? Barack Obama was the president who opened the revenue floodgates to fund these massive programs.

Aiming at Nuclear Facilities 

In 2011, repeatedly bombing and killing hundreds of Libyan civilians and setting off a decade of chaos and mayhem were constitutionally okay, but a one-mission taking out a rogue nation’s nuclear facilities that threatened world peace and likely killed few, if any, civilians was unconstitutional and amoral?

Then Along Came Trump 

Every other president failed to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear armed or even slow Iran’s progression to get a bomb, according to VDH. Of the B-2 bombings, VDH writes,

Intelligence-wise, it was quite stunning how there were no leaks but lots of successful misdirection and deceptions, such as redeploying the B-2s to Guam. It also made sense to strike early in Trump’s two-week window of warning, as otherwise, each day of quiet worked against the element of surprise.

Negotiating Peace?

There was little or no appetite in the world, even amongst America’s enemies, for another country to mimic North Korea. Trump has now given Iran the chance of a one-off attack and a return to negotiations—but over what, given that Iran now has nothing to negotiate with other than the survival of its regime?

Impressing Allies/Warning Enemies

 … the fact that the operation was so complex and went apparently according to plan will impress allies and warn enemies— and make Iran worry that more of the same could come and be as effective.

Now the question is, what happens next? The scenarios are endless, admits VDH. Will Iran

• Release terrorist cells in the US?
• Attack US bases nearby with missiles and drones
• Release missiles at the Gulf oil fields?
• Set mines in the Straits of Hormuz?
• Unleash a new volley of missiles at Israel?

This mission, unlike the 1991 and 2003 bombings, was not “a preliminary to a ground invasion.” Nor was it a pile-on 2011 Libyan bombing campaign designed for regime change.” Instead, argues VDH, its agenda was limited.

… the destruction of Iran’s nuclear fortresses—and it apparently succeeded. Iran would be wise to seek a ceasefire and negotiate for the regime’s survival. Pundits claim Iran must do something to restore its reputation. But the more it acts and fails, the greater its humiliation.

U.S. naval power will soon stop any Iranian naval attacks in the Straits of Hormuz. If Iran sends missiles into the Gulf oil fields, it will lose their own.

How about if Iran hits US bases?

(Iran) will likely get a response quite unlike the aftermath lull of the killing of Gen. Soleimani.

Unleashing a hidden massive arsenal on Israel? Iran can expect Israel to respond in kind.

The current tension is unprecedented, concedes Mr. Hanson.

… the supposed powerhouse of the Middle East now has no defenses, no nuclear deterrent, and few terrorist operatives left in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, or Yemen.

If (Iran) conduct(s) terrorism in the United States, we would likely see mass deportations of thousands of Iranian green card or travel visa holders, and standoff missile and bombing retaliations against Iran. Otherwise, Israel will continue to strike Iran, and the U.S. will likely pivot and offer to negotiate an end – unless the US is attacked.

Mr. Hanson, what do you think will be the reaction among Iranians on the street or with their military?

Who knows? Will the humiliation from the bombing force regime change? Would what follows be better, the same, or worse?

Theocracy is a much more dangerous government, given Iran’s size, wealth, and nuclear expertise, than those nations run by past bombed-out dictators like Gaddafi, Milosevic, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein. And even their fates offer mixed messages as to what followed their forced demise. One could argue that what succeeded the jailed Milosevic was clearly better; the executed Saddam, eventually, maybe better; the murdered Gaddafi, likely no better and probably worse; and the Taliban simply returned to power, energized with $50 billion in U.S. munitions, vehicles, and military infrastructure.

What often doesn’t go down well is the bombing of a nation with virtual impunity from the air, however justified, selective, or careful. But that said, claims VDH, “the generals now know their superiors are being killed off by the Israelis, and would not wish to be next on the list.” What they do fear is the humiliation of the military in the eyes of the public. By losing this war, the military is shown itself to be impotent.

The generals surely appreciate that the people not just resent perhaps $1 trillion over nearly fifty years invested in the greedy and now neutered Hamas, Hezbollah, the Assads, and the Houthis, as well as the vast subterranean nuclear facilities, and billions of dollars spent on missiles and air defense—but it was all for nothing. 

Iran, No Goodwill Anywhere 

A case can be made that Iran was the most hated country in the world. The Arab world, Europe, and America despised it. Iran’s bullying terrorism turned off even illiberal regimes. China and Russia, both anti-Islamic, found it useful, but otherwise, did not boast about their creepy partner. Once it started bleeding, no patron appeared to help it in extremis.

Even its partners may have been not unhappy that this loud bully received a comeuppance and may now be silently glad the U.S. ended its nuclear threat.

On 8 October 2023, Tehran was given a choice:

… to publicly abhor the killing and communicate to Israel its innocence or go for broke and help to coordinate massive and simultaneous missile strikes from the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Iran in an all-out war.

Instead, each of these terrorist entities acted piecemeal, and Iran sat back and watched, hoping one might find success. Or worse, each was relieved when Israel attacked elsewhere one of their supposed allies.

Before turning to Iran, Israel systematically checked off each terrorist entity, for the most part in a compartmentalized and separate fashion. Surrogates were either defanged or harbored ill will, VDH reminds readers.  Yes, Tehran had led them on, but was nowhere to be found when they were held to account and crushed by Israel.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare.