Suzanne Maloney on Iran
A podcast recommendation.
For a sobering, but I think accurate, assessment of the war in Iran, I would recommend Ezra Klein’s interview with Suzanne Maloney from the Brookings Institution: Is Iran Winning?
Spoiler: the answer is more or less “yes.”
To cut to the chase, from the end of the interview (the bolded portion is Klein, the rest is Maloney:
Just thinking through our conversation here, if you imagine a world a month from now where the war is winding down or has wound down because America couldn’t bear the disruption to global energy, helium, fertilizer, supplies, etc.; the Iranian regime remains in place, controlling the Strait of Hormuz, probably charging different ships tolls to go through or making particular deals with different countries that benefit Iran in order to have safe passage through the strait — that feels like a war we would have lost. Is that wrong?
I think that’s correct. I don’t see a victory in real terms at the end of this crisis. We may be able to extricate ourselves without even more catastrophic human losses than have already been experienced. But there is very little evidence that we’re going to be able to come out of this war with a different regime in Iran with less control over the Strait of Hormuz.
And that is a very dangerous outcome for the long term — the wider implications of the United States having undertaken this action in a way that has alienated partners and allies in the region and all around the world, having effectively ceded huge financial benefits to the Russians and potentially ceded some diplomatic opportunity to the Chinese. And it’s not clear that President Trump is prepared to sustain American leadership or that even if he were, in the aftermath of this — what appears to be a catastrophic overreach and miscalculation with the attacks on Iran — that, in fact, the United States will be trusted to do that by countries around the world. It feels like a Suez moment in some respects.
There is also a key point at the end that Iran really has no reason to trust negotiations with the US. Trump tore up the JCPOA and then bombed Iran twice, whilst in the middle of negotiations. Hegseth may think that we “negotiate with bombs” is some kind of ruthless, warrior mentality, but it is more the stuff of schoolyard strategists.
See also her new piece in Foreign Affairs: The Third Islamic Republic.
Even worse, by joining Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear program last year, the US has painted itself in such a corner that it doesn’t fully control its own strategic decisions anymore.
Every time Israel drops a bomb, Iran has to assume that the US will join the attacks at some point. Because that is a thing that already happened.
See also: Rubio says US struck Iran fearing it would retaliate for Israeli attack
Of course, this administration lies as easily as a normal person breathes, but Rubio’s remarks do reflect what ought to be rational assumptions from the Iranian perspective.
Bonus fun fact: the Israelis know (and knew!) this, too.
Good job, all around.
Distrust of the US will/has spread far beyond Iran. Years ago European advocates for rebuilding their own defenses independent of the US, were making the point that Europe couldn’t entrust its security to a handful of voters in Wisconsin.
For the indefinite future, the only agreements that other countries will make with the US are ones that are in fact, treaties and will go through the Constitutional ratification process. Given the current partisanship, it’s doubtful many will.
While a prez could break a treaty unilaterally, it will be a much heavier lift than and agreement entered into by a predecessor.
The GCC have allowed the U.S. to maintain bases on their territory based on the idea that the U.S. military would protect them. Now these bases make them the targets of Iran’s missiles and drones, and the U.S. is not much help. These bases have become much less welcome.
@Sleeping Dog:
Donny does not restrict himself to breaking predecessor agreements, he breaks his own.
As well, the conspiracy theory that US could [would!] have won Vietnam “if only” they didnt have ROE’s is conclusively disproven. Fun fact: The other guy gets a say, and they have bullets too.. in this case, missiles.
“Madman Theory” should be forever renamed “Agreement Incapable Theory”. It doesnt make people surrender to you, it just needlessly extends conflict bc everyone knows your word means nothing.
Any child who thinks for one millisecond that the US “won” every Vietnam battle is ignoring the over 100 pitched battles the US lost.
I do look forward to see what enterprising RW nutso creates the 2027 equivalent of the Bo Gritz grift POW/MIA which lasted for decades among the gullible.