On Sunday, Abbas Araghchi denied the Trump administration’s claims that another deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz is imminent.
Instead, Araghchi explained, Tehran’s hammering out an arrangement with Oman that’d allow for orderly transit for approved vessels. Direct negotiations with Donald Trump aren’t possible currently, he went on.
“New” articles about the situation in the Gulf are a mainstay of the daily newsflow, but reading between the lines, not much has actually changed over the past two or three weeks.
By refusing to take the win in March — i.e., by declining to leave well enough alone and let the Guards parade the Monty Python Black Knight impression they were guaranteed to perform anyway — Trump has willed into existence the very state of affairs he was ostensibly trying to avert when he went to war in February.
Rationales for the war vary by the day and tend to center around Iran’s nuclear program. But another excuse revolves around the Iranian threat to freedom of navigation through the world’s most important maritime energy chokepoint. (Polling consistently suggests voters view the war as a mistake, regardless of rationale.)
It’s pretty obvious now that the only way the IRGC’s going to revert to a pre-war stance on the Strait is if the US pulls up stakes altogether in the region, which is to say abandons all of its major military bases and most of its minor outposts too. Failing that, the Iranians are likely to insist on some manner of joint control over the waterway with Oman.
The good news for the world is that, as it turns out, the closure of the Strait wasn’t the macroeconomic catastrophe many “experts” insisted it would be. There are a variety of explanations for that, and there are plenty of good arguments to support the notion that we haven’t experienced the worst of the fallout. But so far anyway, life goes on.
The bad news for Tehran is that the Strait’s now a wasting asset. I’ve been over that half a dozen times at least. The Gulf monarchies will find other ways to get trapped product to markets. They’re already working on it. And insurance premiums for vessels transiting the Strait will never fully normalize, which means the waterway will be avoided when possible even once it’s open.
In the meantime, the US naval blockade of Iranian ports means the Guards are losing revenue just like everybody else. And at this juncture, it’s worth asking whether the US could checkmate the IRGC simply by giving the regime exactly what it wants.
Imagine for a moment that Trump swallows his pride and the isolationist wing of the GOP succeeds in overriding the Israel lobby and old guard, interventionist Republicans beholden to America’s military-industrial complex, on the way to supporting a wholesale military abandonment of the region. That’s exceedingly unlikely, but let’s pretend.
That’d be a “dog catches the car” moment for Tehran. Yes, Israel would remain a state, so the regime would still have a raison d’être. But after the celebrating and grandiloquent gloating was finished, what then? What’s the narrative from the IRGC and the clerics if “Great Satan” were to just up and leave one day? Not in a dramatic Saigon/Kabul moment, but rather in a brusque decampment accompanied by some sort of arrogant, vaguely ethnocentric press release declaring it’s time for the region to “decide for itself the path it wants to take.”
In that scenario, what do you say if you’re Mojtaba Khamenei and the Guards? A lot initially. But what’s your “day after” plan? What do you tell a populace you’ve oppressed for decades on the excuse that only you can protect them from a threat that’s now gone?
That’s the same quandary the Kim dynasty would face in the (also unlikely) event the US accepted Pyongyang as a legitimate nuclear state. What do you do then if you’re the Kims? Because at that point, the whole country will have a lot of questions, and they’ll all amount to this: “Ok, we won. High fives. Now what’d be really great is if we can have a functioning economy and start working on the trappings of representative government.”
It says a lot about how little America’s actually accomplished in the Mideast that it’s even possible to suggest it wasn’t worth it. Ask yourself: How wrong do things have to go, and for how long, before something as incalculably beneficial to America as the petrodollar can be deemed not worth the trouble in hindsight?
The petrodollar’s more than a “system.” It’s a kind of ordering principle that weaves American hegemony into the very fabric of global finance, international relations and geostrategy. In theory, no cost is too great in the service of preserving it, because the benefits are incalculable. And yet the costs by now almost surely outweigh those benefits. That’s how FUBAR America’s Mideast entanglements are: The sum total of the fuckups is such that it eclipses the transfinite.
Everyone knows that. So why not just leave? Take this opportunity to get out. Israel’s a nuclear state with a military ready, willing and fully capable of running roughshod over anyone in the vicinity. Israel faces a lot of threats to its security, but exactly no credible threats to its existence. Jordan will be fine either way, and I dare say they’d be better off without hosting US military personnel. The Saudis are armed to the teeth. So are the Emirates. Iran would rather not be firing projectiles at neutral Qatar, to say nothing of blameless Oman. Iraq’s going to be a quasi-Iranian client state either way (i.e., America stays or America goes). You can thank George W. Bush for that.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah’s not going away, not as a paramilitary nor as a political party. Paradoxically, the best way to keep the peace is for Israel to accept that. As for Syria — and with apologies for how unsympathetic this sounds — they’ll either figure it out or they won’t. It’s the Wild West in there, and Israel should ask itself if pursuing an interventionist agenda’s likely to produce a better outcome than a laissez-faire approach. I think the answer’s “no,” and if Mossad’s rejoinder is, “Well, the whole idea is to ensure Syria remains a failed state,” I’d politely suggest that’s a heinous agenda.
Finally — and this too is obvious to everyone — the Palestinian question has no “answer.” A stateless people carved out a home for themselves and in the process created another stateless people who understandably never got over it. Israel’s adamant that those people’s right to self-determination, to the extent they have such a right, is subordinate to its own.
As for “the international community,” whatever that overused term even means, the Palestinians are like the polar bears. Everyone says they want to save them, but no one actually does. I don’t know how adept Palestinians are at running casinos but… well, you get where I’m going with that, right?
So, here’s my unsolicited advice to Trump. You want to be a “transformational” US president? You want to “end forever wars?” Ok, here’s your chance. Pull up stakes in the Mideast, leave the place to thrive or burn and tell everyone there the American public doesn’t give a shit which. Because the vast majority of us most assuredly don’t.
How are ego’s tamed?
There’s no way you read this all the way through before you commented. It was published at 12:22 and you commented ~236 seconds later. I’m not saying there’s anything “wrong” with that, but maybe read the whole thing first.
I do read fast.
I am not saying there is a solution to the question I advanced. It is an excellent piece and excellent advice. Better than I could have written.
This is great advice for Trump. He can also use this as a rationale for replacing Hegseth with someone who knows what they are doing.
Hopefully, Trump doesn’t then turn his attention to Taiwan and create another debacle.
Sadly, no one who can tolerate His Royal Highness of the Very Tiny Hands actually knows what they are doing so we are stuck with the whiny lout we’ve got.
We knew we were in even a worse situation than I even previously imagined when Chistopher Donahue ( former Delta Force commander) retired early.
I believe that a lot of senior, qualified military personnel are retiring early. This doesn’t bode well for US military strength.
You’ve articulated what many of us think. Unfortunately, I doubt that potus will be following your advice. Chapeau to another superb piece of writing Sir
Just thinking out loud. I remember past comments about 3 predators: Russia, USA, China. Seems Russia is bogged down (why Syria fell?) and now USA is getting bogged down – China sitting calm. Could it be our enemies are helping Iran – strategy of duration and total cost to USA in resources and politics? USA could take Iran but the cost would be enormous and the vacuum it would create for China and even Russia would be disastrous. Trump is running from the consequences of his arrogant, stupid intervention strategically. USA predators should stick to the Venezuela types until they get the hang of it. H, you are right from my simple view for all the reasons you mention, even more. No expert here…
Good piece. As far as Trump’s ego, he can just make up some new lie about why we left. Like H said, it would be transformational if we picked up and left every country. Young GIs don’t have to die to missiles. Trump could tell everyone he talked to the Almighty in a dream.
All this said, I have no faith in the Democrats taking advantage of this shit show. They’re absolutely pathetic.
I was in the Navy when Iraqi forces under Saddam Hussein rolled through Kuwait. At the time, there was concern that they would keep on going into the Saudi oilfields. I remember attending a briefing on what forces we had in the area to counter the threat (mostly battleships and A-10’s). Since then I have been back to the Gulf just about every year until I retired about 10 years ago. I came to see the US as a mercenary force to maintain security in the region. And although we were a formidable force, our presence came with certain unfortunate downsides. What a modern navy does at sea cannot be seen from the shore, but the occasional drunken sailor wandering the streets stirring up trouble can. When this sailor is drinking alcohol from a paper bag and eating a handful of pork treats during Ramadan, it is so incredibly offensive that it leaves a lasting disgust. All it takes is one unfortunate incident to send the wrong message. Over the years, I saw how the locals (at least on the street) really wished we would just go away. It’s not like Americans blend in over there. It’s like holding the leash of the biggest, most powerful dog. When the dog poops in the street it is no longer a source of pride. Donald Trump represents that dog – powerful, biddable if given treats on a regular basis, but barely under control and given to embarrassing behavior.
Things have changed fundamentally in the past two years. One change has been the revolution in modern warfare due to the conflict in Ukraine. The US has missed this revolution, and we seem to be focused now on bringing back the battleship (which Billy Mitchell proved obsolete in 1921). The other change is that the US is no longer a stabilizing force for security, but rather the source for insecurity in the region. The US may have degraded Iran’s ability to send an army into Saudi Arabia, but we are the primary reason they are doing whatever damage they can right now. Tourism is way down in the Gulf region, and each day this conflict continues the Gulf states will lose ground in their quest to build a playground for rich adults in the desert.
I agree with H on this. This is a great opportunity to pull stakes and get out. With the new technology, the Gulf states should be able to defend themselves against an invading army without having a bunch of tanks and a huge standing army. Trump just needs to make Powerus the sole supplier of drones to the region (for both sides, preferably), and all will be well.
Fine comment Mr Swamp. I have some “wealthy” acquaintances that left Hong Kong a few years back and settled in Dubai among other rich expats, they are all figuring out where to move next, the US has indeed become a source of insecurity in the region. I can’t imagine some of these places are pleased with the US war erasing the illusion that the Gulf could become a playground for wealthy westerners. Such sweet(?) irony.
Terrific insights sir and a great analogy. Thank you
The president needs to find a way to “save face” before pulling up the stakes and leaving. In recent history, how many liv
how many lives have been squandered to save someone’s face?
I have been saying this for years. For God’s sake, what was the opportunity cost of the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and what did we really accomplish in any of those places? Our military operates best when we stick to clear tangible goals and work in cooperation with our allies. That usually only happens when you have an enemy that poses a real threat to everyone. Something that has been absent from many of our most recent conflicts. I would not be surprised at some future date to hear that this war was really just fought for continued access to cheap oil (how ironic) and because our current administration had just recently taken a sizable position in Raytheon.
“That usually only happens when you have an enemy that poses a real threat to everyone.”
Wait, what? Isn’t Trump the real threat to everyone? Well, I guess one can say only to the citizens of the United States of America since we are now running out of bombs to threaten anyone else.
My point was that ever since Vietnam we have chosen most of our conflicts rather poorly, and at great cost to the American people. Perhaps the Persian Gulf War (90-91) stands out as an exception. Although you might disagree with our decision to enter into that war, we had a mandate from the U.N., we had a clearly defined set of goals, we were joined by 42 allies, and we left as soon as our mission was completed. That is quite different from our current administration’s execution of this war.
If we bail out of the Mideast, Iran will have newfound conviction in fomenting regional strife and proxy wars to keep their population cowed and to rationalize an all-out effort to field nuclear weapons in any breathing space the West allows. Every other state in the region will need to rapidly develop or buy their own nuclear arsenal. I don’t know if Pakistan is supposed to play nuclear security partner, but I don’t personally buy it – not with Moscow partnering with Iran. The only solution that will be ruled out from the start by GCC countries will be to rely on the US.
Not sure it would make any difference in North Korea. Very few North Koreans have access to the internet, they are force fed drivel from a young age and any dissonance is continually erased (literally). Isn’t it amazing how far the human condition has developed (not).
The other issue of course is that if the USA leaves who will fill the vacuum? Russia and China! Russia is in there with Iran and China needs the oil complex and the iterations of that relationship would not be good for the US or the rest of the world.
China has demonstrated very little in the way of appetite to project military strength beyond their sphere of influence. The PLA has no interest in establishing major bases in the Mideast. And we saw that Russia’s willingness to backstop client states in the region has its limits — they lost Syria and, for all intents and purposes, Iran too. So, no, not “Russia and China!” Maybe Russia, with no exclamation point, because they’re going to be everywhere there’s opportunity and trouble, but it would be out of character entirely for Xi to make a serious military commitment to that region.
Also, you need to define “the iterations of that relationship would not be good for the US or the rest of the world.” There’s a tendency for people to use that line (and variations of it) to scare America into sticking around over there without actually spelling out what it means. What are these “iterations” of Chinese involvement in the Mideast that are so terrifying, exactly?
And don’t try the “petroyuan” canard. I’ll tear that apart.
As I used to say 20 years ago when the Chinese started doing projects in Africa , “We’ve had our chance to lose money there. Let them have a turn”
Seems we tried that thinking in Vietnam and it didn’t go well. Somehow they prospered once the US left, imagine that.