Trump’s Iran strategy is facing its toughest test as Tehran refuses to bend
NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
In the first weeks of America’s conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran, US and allied aircraft imposed a real cost on Tehran. That tactical success is welcome. But as I have written before, “One war in Iran went to the US war.” What has not been resolved – and now shapes everything – is the strategic outcome.
The United States faces an important fork in the road. One approach leads to kinetic expansion, which risks regional and global catastrophe. The other leads to a limited exit road. The hard question is whether that way out really exists.
What happened in Beijing
A few days ago, President Trump held a high-level summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. Both leaders agreed that the Strait of Hormuz must remain open and that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. Beijing has not produced a concrete plan to pressure Tehran.
WHY TRUMP, IRAN SEE LIGHT YEARS FROM DIVING WITH ANY AMOUNT TO END THE WAR
Trump was direct about it. He told American interlocutors that he did not ask for “help” from China because “when someone helps you, they always want something from the other side.”
Beijing’s real behavior tells the real story. While Trump was in China, Iranian semiofficial agencies reported that Chinese ships began to pass through the Strait under new agreements with Iran after requests from the Chinese foreign minister and the ambassador to Iran. Beijing was not pressuring Tehran. It was a pleasure.
Why That Matters
President Trump declared a ceasefire “on the basis of life” on May 10 after rejecting Tehran’s previous proposal as “unacceptable.” On May 18, Tehran sent another response to Pakistan’s mediation while at the same time declaring that nuclear enrichment rights are “non-negotiable” – calling enrichment an “already-existing right.” That is not the state of the country going to the settlement.
The Strait of Hormuz remains a central flashpoint. On May 15, a ship was seized off the coast of the UAE and an Indian-flagged cargo ship sank near Oman after an attack. Iran’s senior vice president declared that the road “belongs to Iran” and will not be given away “at any price.”
The top US commander in the region, Adm. Brad Cooper, told Congress that Iran’s military power has been “drastically diminished,” but that Tehran’s leaders are disrupting shipping around the world with rhetoric — threats “clearly felt by the brokerage industry and the insurance industry.” He said the US has the power to permanently reopen the strait but has left it up to policy makers.
The result is a double blockade: The US Navy has blockaded Iranian ports since April 13, Iran blockaded the Gulf. Neither side is wrong.
Military Limits
The case for climbing is emotionally compelling. If Iran refuses to concede nuclear enrichment or maritime control, deep strikes may appear to be the only lever left. History advises otherwise.
Bombing Iran’s power grid, major bridges, or public infrastructure can produce dramatic images. No capitulation will be produced. Iran holds about 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent – weeks of weapons-grade material. A Natanz satellite image published in March showed no new damage to the facility’s pipelines after strikes that Trump described as “demolishing” Iran’s nuclear program. Kinetic pressure reverses the nuclear problem. It doesn’t erase.
Widespread bombing would pressure Tehran to target desalination plants, power grids, and civilian infrastructure across the Gulf states. Iran has already shown its willingness to strike in the region: tankers seized, cargo ship sunk, cruise missiles fired at commercial vessels in mid-May. An escalation leading to a full-scale blockade of Hormuz risks a global economic collapse, not just regional disruption.
We’ve seen this pattern before
Iran and its proxies have carried out punitive strikes before and continue to fight back. After major defeats, they reaffirmed the torture at sea, continued oppression of representatives, and maintained the unity of the state. The tactical gains did not translate into a strategic defeat for Tehran, and there is no reason to expect a different outcome now. Widespread bombing is more likely to create a refugee crisis than political moderation. Laws under pressure exist. It doesn’t hold back.
The Off-Ramp Illusion
Any deal Washington could realistically offer would resemble the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action of 2015 – consolidated enrichment levels, reduced stockpiles, international ratification, sanctions relief. The JCPOA set the enrichment limit at 3.67 percent and reduced Iran’s uranium stockpile from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms. Trump called that deal “the worst deal ever.” He does not return to it. But even those generous words failed. And Iran today is in a much more difficult situation than it was in 2015.
Tehran’s Foreign Ministry has declared that nuclear enrichment is an “inherent right” and is not negotiable. That position held for the years of the JCPOA, through two military campaigns, and through the death of its supreme leader. Trump needs zero enrichment. Iran will not agree. The gap cannot be closed through diplomacy. A deal that Iran rejects is not a deal. The deal that Iran signs, by definition, preserves enrichment. That is not the result the administration says it wants.
The arithmetic is clear. Iran’s 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent will not be surrendered voluntarily. If the administration’s primary goal is a non-nuclear Iran, and Tehran won’t sign a deal that eliminates its enrichment program, then the United States will be forced to go get it. There is no third option.
What Managers Should Consider
THE WAR IS DRIVING HOME: WHY FINANCIAL PAIN AND ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY ARE THREATENING TRUMP’S DRIVE TO TOP IRAN
Domestic politics cannot be ignored. High energy prices and unresolved conflicts cut directly into voter sentiment as the midterms approach. Reuters analysts warned that the risk of escalation leaves the president worse off than before the war – draining political capital without bringing peace. A full-scale war that disrupts energy markets and risks a global recession is a far worse outcome than the framework negotiated in the Straits. But the nuclear issue will not be resolved by a framework that Tehran will not sign.
A Real Fork in the Road
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
The United States can and should pursue a withdrawal from the Strait of Hormuz. That is achievable and worth the diplomatic costs. But the nuclear question is a complex one. Clausewitz taught that war is an instrument of policy, not a substitute for it. The policy objective here is a non-nuclear Iran. The tool used has not won, and the diplomacy offered will not.
No state that survived 39 days of US and Israeli strikes, watched its supreme leader killed, and still says wealth is non-negotiable will offer that power to the table in Islamabad. The real fork is not climbing versus diplomacy. It is this: accept a nuclear-capable Iran as a permanent consequence of this war or accept the cost of physically removing the threat. Washington must make that decision deliberately — not automatically when a ceasefire finally falls.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ROBERT MAGINNIS
