Donald Trump’s latest meltdown in response to “ceasefire” violations by both Iran and Israel but especially Israel brings out the uncanny quality of everything that has happened over the last week — the simultaneous existence of a very real hot war with what amounts to a social media campaign. They’re both happening. They’re clearly interacting with each other. But the dynamics of the two are so separate, distinct, operating according to totally different rules that watching the two together looks deeply unreal.
Subsequent reporting by The New York Times and other publications seems to confirm my initial assumption, which was that the entire U.S. involvement in this conflict was driven by especially Fox News’s reporting of Israel’s onslaught against Iran’s military infrastructure and nuclear program. Israel was “winning” and Trump wanted in on that winning. And that was really the entirety of it. But Trump’s decision to escalate the crisis to a level of destruction of underground facilities that only the U.S. is capable of had a very real result. And it’s not just whatever level of destruction those bunker buster bombs created — which appears substantial but not total.
Iran now faces a very big strategic decision. I would argue that major damage to the country’s nuclear program isn’t even the biggest issue. For years, Iran’s real deterrent was the so-called “axis of resistance,” the ring of para-militaries, states and quasi-states stretching in an arc from Lebanon into Syria, Iraq and then into Yemen. That’s now been shattered. And that’s a very big part of what made Israel’s direct attack on Iran possible. It’s gone virtually unremarked on in the U.S. press that Israel has been striking Iran more or less with impunity for more than a week and as far as I know not a single rocket has been fired by Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon. Hezbollah’s military capacity and command and control has been seriously degraded. But it’s certainly not the case that they don’t have a single rocket left. They’re just not participating in this at all. That’s an example of just how much has changed in the last year. The fact that Hezbollah sat right on Israel’s northern border, ready to rain a limitless arsenal down on Israeli cities, was a central part of the mutual deterrence which kept Israel and Iran out of a hot war.
It’s clear that Trump’s claims that the Fordow facility was obliterated were nonsense. But it was certainly badly damaged. Whatever you think of the U.S. involvement, when the U.S. got involved, it significantly changed the equation in terms of the logic of what Iran does now. Yes, Iran can simply rebuild what was destroyed. But if Israel and the U.S. will simply destroy it again, what’s the point? And what is Iran’s deterrence? Iran’s conventional military capacity has been revealed to be no match for Israel’s. That wasn’t in a lot of doubt, but Iran’s ability to inflict damage on Israel with its ballistic missiles now seems very limited. That was a big question. The deterrent provided by Hezbollah is gone at least for now.
None of this is about Trump being some strategic genius. It hasn’t gotten nearly enough play in the U.S. press that this entire situation is very literally Donald Trump’s fault. He tore up Obama’s painstakingly negotiated nuclear deal for really no reason but spite and advisors telling him it would be cool. Then he did nothing to replace it. We’re here really entirely because of Trump’s impulsive decisions. But a particular set of historical developments have created a real opening for him. I lack the knowledge of the internal dynamics of the Iranian clerical regime to know if it’s plausible that it might shift away from its nuclear ambitions as part of some regional deal. On its face you’d think this has shown them just how critical it is for their regime to have a nuclear deterrent. Countries build nuclear weapons precisely so they don’t find themselves in helpless situations like this. That certainly makes sense to me. But that’s not the only course forward. If you decide the U.S. and Israel will just destroy it again, what’s the point?
My point here isn’t to say Trump’s on the verge of some big regional peace deal. Even the existence of a “ceasefire deal” is questionable. Israel and Iran have confirmed its existence. But reports that Trump’s own advisors were surprised when he announced it on Truth Social makes it highly likely that Trump simply asserted it and Iran and Israel basically yessed him. In other words, it’s a “ceasefire deal” with none of the painstaking shuttling or negotiation that gives ceasefire deals a chance of sticking. That said, both sides have an interest in one right now.
I’ll repeat again: I don’t know what’s possible or plausible there. But I do know that the strategic balance between Israel and Iran has changed vastly over the last year. And that matters. What I want to focus attention on is that you have this very dangerous and fluid situation which yet does hold some opportunities for a different regional trajectory. Meanwhile you have as a or perhaps the critical player a guy who’s really just tweeting and pulled this way and that by the impressions and feelings driven by Fox News — that and what I imagine are opaque but probably critical conversations with Trump’s Gulf prince business partners. How these interact is really anyone’s guess. You have two warring parties each with an interest in at least a short term stand down. And the party in a position to settle the matter is what amounts to an impulsive if sometimes canny child.