Nearly a quarter of a century after the American-led invasion of Iraq, another president has launched a war of choice and hubris in the Middle East with no clarity of end state and no discernible strategy. Two weeks on, and the US and Israel continue their relentless, industrial aerial assault. Iran’s military capability is on the way to being destroyed, smoke rises over the rubble of bombed cities and civilian casualties mount. Tehran is lashing out with missile attacks against all Gulf states and, ominously for Trump, there is no sign of the popular uprising to topple the regime he naively called for.
Meanwhile, while the obscenely vainglorious secretary “of war”, Pete Hegseth, rants about raining down death and destruction and scorns rules of engagement as “stupid” (which might come back to bite him if he is indicted as a war criminal for the death of over 100 schoolgirls killed by a US Tomahawk missile), his master Trump flip-flops between a range of outcomes, from unconditional surrender to regime change. In his increasingly demented mind, he claims the war is already won – so expect an imminent declaration of victory – leaving Iran in ruins, still controlled by an angry, extremist Islamic theocracy determined to extract revenge.
However, Trump has a problem. Israel and the US may have massively degraded Iranian military capability but the Iranians have Trump over a barrel by blocking the strait of Hormuz. All indications are that they still have significant stocks of cheap drones and will be able to produce more. Anyway, all it has taken is a few ships hit by drones to ensure that insurance cover is removed and ship owners shy away from the risk. America may be winning the tactical bombing battle, but while the strait of Hormuz is closed to shipping, oil prices will continue to rocket, causing global economic meltdown, and Trump will be presiding over a strategic disaster. Perhaps we are about to witness the perfect example of Sun Tzu’s maxim “tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”.
Faced with this reality, Trump is now pressurising his allies to step in to support the US, but his threat that “the future for Nato will be very bad” if Nato allies do not respond to his demands are falling on deaf ears; no surprise, given that Trump himself effectively holed Nato below the waterline in January with his threat of military action against Denmark over Greenland. As it is, trust in the US commitment to Nato’s collective defence had already been shattered by Hegseth and Vice-President Vance at last year’s Munich Security Conference and the Defence Ministerial in Brussels in February, to say nothing of Trump’s siding with indicted war criminal Putin in his genocidal war in Ukraine and his efforts to force Kyiv to capitulate to Russian demands.
So where might the war in Iran go from here?
Trump might get lucky, achieve the aim of neutralising Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities within four to six weeks, and declare victory. But this would be wishful thinking given that Iran has ruled out negotiating under fire and that hardline elements dominate its wartime decision-making, to say nothing of the complete absence of any evidence of regime fracture or mass defections.
Equally likely is a protracted attritional fight as Iran keeps up the asymmetric pressure with drones, proxy networks (as in Iraq) and continued economic disruption. America will continue to struggle to translate military success into political outcomes while Iran holds the cards by controlling the strait of Hormuz.
The scale of effort needed for a march on Tehran is mind-boggling, as are the potential consequences
But don’t rule out escalation. A major maritime and air effort on an occasional basis might be able to escort convoys through the strait, but if the US is to gain control of it for any length of time, it is difficult to see how it can be done without securing the coastline, requiring a massive amphibious and land operation. Additionally, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to capitulate, the US and Israel could expand ground operations to achieve regime change. Trump’s “unconditional surrender” rhetoric and Hegseth’s refusal to rule out ground operations point in this direction. The scale of effort needed for a march on Tehran is mind-boggling, as are the potential consequences, which would make the Iraq war look like a teddy bears’ picnic.
So what should Britain and its European allies do now? Like it or not, we have a dog in this fight. Our allies in the Gulf are under attack, and British, French and Italian forces in Iraq have been attacked by drones, as has Britain’s sovereign base area in Cyprus. Nato air defences have shot down missiles entering Turkish airspace and Nato sea lines of communication are threatened by the blockade of the strait of Hormuz and attacks on shipping in the Red Sea by pro-Iranian Houthis in Yemen. British interests, and the interests of our European and other allies, are threatened.
However, it is not in British or allied interests to get dragged into Trump’s war. This is the moment for what Prime Minister Carney of Canada calls the “middle powers” to come together to pool their ideas and resources to find a way to reopen the strait of Hormuz. Above all, though, they must keep America at arm’s length and not get sucked into what could well become a disaster.
General Sir Richard Shirreff is former Nato deputy supreme allied commander Europe and a member of the Energy Security Leadership Council