MICHAEL HALL: Trump Risks Boxing Himself In On Iran

One consequential issue looms over President Trump’s Middle East visit this week: Iran. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has put significant effort into diplomacy with the Islamic Republic — though agreement on a framework for a new nuclear deal is proving elusive.

Momentarily setting aside the substance of a deal, it’s worth noting the Trump administration has erected barriers around these negotiations — including imposing a 60-day limit to reach a deal and declaring that Iran can either choose to make a deal or risk a U.S.-led military effort to destroy their nuclear program. This all-or-nothing approach puts U.S.-Iran diplomacy on a perilous path. If bombing Iran is truly plan B, Trump would be wise to go back to the drawing board.

While we should be hopeful for a meaningful and durable deal, it remains a grim possibility that these talks will fall apart. Messaging from the U.S. side has been mixed, but it is hard to see Iran agreeing to any deal which stipulates that Iran will not be able to enrich its own uranium and must dismantle its missile program. If a diplomatic effort to halt Iran’s nuclear program fails, the Trump administration is touting a military alternative. Trump recently characterized his options by saying, “There are only two alternatives there, blow them up nicely or blow them up viciously.” (RELATED: ‘Critically Important’: Iran Allegedly Used China As Golden Ticket To Quietly Operate In Panama Canal)

TOPSHOT – A protester holds a placard as she takes part in a march on the second anniversary of a protest movement sparked by the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, 22, arrested for allegedly violating the dress code for women at Place de la Bastille, in Paris on September 15, 2024. (Photo by Sameer Al-DOUMY / AFP) (Photo by SAMEER AL-DOUMY/AFP via Getty Images)

But bombing Iran would be a disastrous move — not just for Tehran, but for the U.S.

Iran would almost certainly respond to any kinetic attack, just as Tehran could not refrain from a response when the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani was killed during Trump’s first term and they could not refrain from a response when Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus or when Israel assassinated the Hezbollah leader and bombed a building in Tehran, killing a Hamas leader. And even if Iran did not hit U.S. territory, there are plenty of American troops in Iran’s vicinity which Tehran could consider as targets. A bit further afield, Iran could consider striking some of our naval assets in the region or even the numerous bombers which are stationed on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was right when she characterized this massing of U.S. military assets in the region as needlessly antagonistic to Iran.

Any strikes against Iran may be described as ‘limited,’ but such action would invite an escalation cycle between the U.S. and Iran, which could culminate into a full-blown war.

That’s a bad option, not least because Americans have grown tired of endless wars and our long series of misadventures in the Middle East, which have cost us a staggering amount of blood and treasure. Indeed, these Middle East wars are something Trump has criticized and acted to end.

Up close, a war with Iran — or even a ‘limited’ campaign relying on airpower and strike teams—would once again risk American lives on a mission in a faraway land against a regime that poses no real threat to our homeland. The Iraq War is widely considered a blunder today, and yet a war with Iran would prove much more taxing. Consider that Iran has mountainous terrain, is more than three times the size of Iraq, and has about three times the population Iraq did in 2003. An Iran campaign would be more akin to the misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan combined — and then some. Consider the nuclear dimension. Right now, Iran does not have the bomb, but there is nothing that would more surely encourage Tehran to race for the bomb than a hostile nuclear power undertaking a military campaign on Iranian soil. (RELATED: Trump Says US May Follow Israel On Striking Iran If Nuclear Talks Don’t Progress)

Launching a full-scale war of choice against Iran would be a black mark on Trump’s foreign policy legacy—and perhaps become the single defining piece of his legacy, overshadowing anything else. For the rest of his term, his officials would be stuck defending the decision to launch a war. Any progress on other issues, including immigration, government efficiency, and trade deals, would take a backseat. Diplomatically, initiating a war against Iran would hardly help our already-uneasy relationships with Russia and China, the only other nuclear superpower and the only near-peer competitor, respectively. Other countries would have a strong incentive to circumvent the power of the dollar and firewall themselves from a reckless and unpredictable Washington. Domestically, it’s hard to see such a war being very popular among Americans—and it’s easy to see how a new war could become a divisive issue.

Of course, a deal would be preferable to war. However, there is an under-discussed thorny aspect of a new nuclear deal: Who will be tasked with enforcing it — and what happens if Iran doesn’t stick to the deal? Maybe Tehran gets spooked by the Saudi nuclear program that Washington aims to establish. Or maybe future Israeli attacks against Iran will give the Iranians cause to secure a nuclear deterrent. Then what? If Iran fails to comply for whatever reason, that doesn’t make war any more appealing.

When it comes to Iran, the truth is that avoiding a war is more vital to U.S. interests than even a deal. The U.S. and Iran have had no deal in place since 2018, and we have successfully avoided war. This status quo no no-deal and no-war situation seems a preferable and workable contingency plan should negotiations break down.

Michael Hall is the Communications Manager of Defense Priorities. Follow him on X: @michaelryhall.