US President Donald Trump has often told the Ukrainians that they have no cards in the war of attrition with Russia. But as tensions escalate in the Persian Gulf, Washington's leader faces increasingly serious questions about how strong his own hand is in the war with Iran, a CNN analysis shows.
shutterstock photo
On paper, the United States holds an undeniable advantage. With a population more than three times that of Iran and the world's most powerful economy and military, Washington appears to have an overwhelming advantage in the balance of raw power. Add to this Israel's sophisticated military and intelligence capabilities, and the odds seem stacked against Tehran.
But Iran, which turned its limited advantages into very effective pressure points, forcing the population under the burden of repression to absorb severe punishment, not only fought for survival, but even took the strategic initiative, some analysts appreciate.
A month after the conflict broke out, the war has become a contest for influence: Trump may well have more power, but winning outright would likely involve accepting levels of political and economic damage he is unwilling to bear. notes CNN.
Iran's Lever: The Strait of Hormuz
The uncomfortable reality for Trump is Iran cannot defeat the US and Israel militarily, but it has played a critical role by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global energy exports. The move sent shockwaves through the world economy and raised political costs for the United States.
The US's strategic vulnerability, despite its military superiority, was highlighted in a White House press conference on Monday. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt hailed Iran's willingness to allow 20 more tankers to pass through the strait in the coming days as a victory for “the president's diplomacy.”
However, it is a paradox. The United States, the bigger power, is in a position to negotiate concessions, and the number of 20 tankers represents just a fraction of the previous traffic, which was more than 100 ships a day, according to the UN Trade and Development Agency. In Leavitt's account, Trump's first apparent diplomatic victory offsets only a small part of the negative impact of his own policies.
Military options are not lacking: the US has the military capability to reopen the Strait by force, but the risks are too great. Any attack on American ships would give Iran a propaganda victory, and the deployment of ground troops could increase American casualties, undermining Trump's already fragile political position.
The same constraints apply to other Trump options, such as seizing Kharg Island in the northern Persian Gulf, the Financial Times reported, citing Trump's statements that he might want to seize Iran's oil. Such a move could cripple Tehran's economy, but it could also provoke retaliation and strengthen Iran's determination to continue to control the Straits.
Escalation or diplomacy?
Trump claimed that productive diplomacy was underway, despite Iran's adamant denial of direct negotiations. At the same time, the US president threatened unprecedented military action to force Tehran's hand to negotiate.
Donald Trump wants to make the Arab countries pay, contributing to the cost of the war with Iran
The arrival of thousands of US Marines, along with more than 1,000 airborne troops, has prompted analysts to warn of an imminent escalation in which the US would intervene on the ground to seize strategic islands. “This is very far from an exit ramp. It seems almost certain that there is a period of escalation ahead,” Ian Bremmer, chairman and founder of Eurasia Group, told CNN on Monday.
Trump had previously threatened to destroy “all power plants, oil wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalination plants!)” if no deal was reached. While militarily feasible, such attacks would draw retaliation from US allies, destabilize global markets, and raise legal and ethical questions about targeting civilian infrastructure.
Economic pressure as a tool
The US does hold an important card, however: the ability to lift sanctions on Iran's oil exports and other economic sectors. Iran's economy has been severely hit by restrictions limiting oil exports, fueling domestic discontent. Still, even economic measures carry risks for Washington. In an unusual move, the administration recently lifted sanctions on Iranian shipping to temper rising global oil prices.
Meanwhile, the White House's list of 15 peace points contains demands that Tehran could never accept, such as strict restrictions on its missile programs and the unconditional surrender of control over the Strait of Hormuz. The daily number of attacks on Iranian targets, which has reached 11,000 a month, risks reducing the conflict to mere casualty counting, reminiscent of the Vietnam War.
“It is not surprising to see the remaining elements of the regime becoming increasingly eager to end the destruction and get to the negotiating table while they have the chance,” Leavitt told reporters.
Shifting goals: Trump willing to end war with Iran even if traffic through Strait of Hormuz remains partially blocked
However, closing the Strait gives Iran disproportionate influence. The disruption has already caused energy and economic shocks as far away as Africa and Asia, and prolonged maritime blockades could trigger a global economic earthquake, imposing severe political costs on Trump.
Even as the US and Israel degrade Iran's missile and drone capabilities, Tehran can still inflict disproportionate damage with limited attacks in the Straits or Gulf cities. At the same time, Iran's leverage increases as the war drags on, putting more pressure on Trump to consider a deal that amounts to some concessions to Iran or be drawn into an uncontrolled escalation where any deal becomes impossible and the costs no longer count.
“Once he loses that ability, his incentives for an exit ramp, compared to the incentives to escalate, will again shift in the wrong direction,” said Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “So the Iranians have to recognize that they don't have all the time on their side, even though they probably have more time than Trump.”
In the end, leverage in a war only matters if it brings a strategic victory, writes CNN. Both the United States and Iran have advantages that could prove decisive, but at the same time, a wrong move by either side, where an exit ramp is no longer possible, could lead to catastrophe—for themselves and for everyone.
