,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Sun Tzu: “Know your enemy, know your yourself.” Here, the enemy (Iran) believes it’s acting defensively in light of economic strangulation, which it views as an act of war. That doesn’t justify its acts but makes deterrence via one-off strikes harder & perhaps counter-productive.
If the enemy believes it’s already under attack and is lashing out (in its view) defensively, then limited strikes absent serious diplomatic initiatives are unlikely to change its mindset. Thus, there is a higher than normal risk of tit-for-tat escalation.
In terms of knowing yourself, there is lack of clarity in U.S. objectives on Iran. What are we trying to achieve via maximum pressure? The president states limited objectives (nuclear deal only) his advisors state maximalist objectives (12 points). US allies are equally confused.
If we can clarify objectives, how would strikes fit into the strategy? Are they more or less likely to bring Iran to the table? Are we prepared to further escalate if initial strikes lead to more provocations from Iran? (Prepared for escalation dominance? Ask now, not later.)
Trump’s ordered pause should be used to ask these and other hard questions about the strategy, its aims, and the mounting risks should the policy remain unchanged. Last night is the first time Trump took Iran policy off auto pilot and that’s good.
There are prudent response measures with clear objectives available — for example, an international coalition to protect shipping lanes — but that will take time, patience, and diplomacy. Time and patience should work to our benefit here (if used wisely).
