Donald Trump is charting new waters for U.S. military policy with respect to Iran. He is seeking to avoid the long wars that afflicted Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. The current administration is fixated on the short, surgical operations. These operations are intended both to protect American forces from harm and put pressure on the Iranian regime as internal tensions escalate. In one of his last statements on the issue Trump offered Iranian protesters encouragement. He announced, “Help is on the way,” indicating his willingness to act if the crisis unfolds even more catastrophically.
This change in approach is a significant and welcomed change to the military doctrines of the past few prior administrations. When boiled down to recognizable strategies, Trump’s seems to be high-impact actions that produce fast outcomes without any of the long-term ground warfare. And the secretary of state’s comments, along with the president’s declaration that the U.S. is “locked and loaded,” imply a readiness to act.
Avoiding Quagmires
Trump’s military doctrine, at least in rhetoric, focuses mainly on not getting sucked into the quagmires that have marred U.S. engagements in the last twenty years. He seems to understand that Americans are weary of decades-long wars of choice. So, he looks for ways to accomplish things without committing large numbers of troops. Instead, his administration is leaning towards air strikes and targeted operations that can effectively diminish Iran’s military capabilities without risking American lives.
In 2022, with growing tensions, the U.S. preemptively launched air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. These strikes were able to do great damage to Iran’s nuclear program without putting a single U.S. soldier in harm’s way. This operation serves as an early example of Trump’s pursuit of a high-tech, low-risk military strategy that achieves strategic objectives without incurring costs.
The anti-woke rhetoric from Trump in recent months is a vivid example of this new direction. His strong language regarding potential U.S. actions indicates a willingness to take decisive measures if the Iranian regime engages in violent repression against its citizens. He’s already made clear that any actions undertaken will be careful and focused. His aim is to avoid the quagmires that have characterized previous wars.
The Situation on the Ground
Iran’s brown awakening has generated a wave of international concern, and for good reason, as reports of violence against protesters have emerged. Notably, just a few days ago, Trump tweeted that the U.S. would retaliate if the Iranian regime shoots at its own people. This declaration would be both a warning to Tehran and a signal of support to those who oppose the government.
The Basij, a volunteer militia affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Now it has turned into a possible target of U.S. operations. The militia is often involved in suppressing dissent within Iran, and targeting such groups could align with Trump’s strategy of supporting Iranian protesters while delivering a blow to the regime’s oppressive apparatus.
Additionally, the Trump administration has already moved to further protect Israel from any future Iranian missile strikes. This initial effort is a jumping off point for a larger regional approach. It is forcefully seeking to undermine Iran’s military assets by coordinating air strikes and sharing intelligence.
Implications of Trump’s Strategy
It’s actually Trump’s own public statements that have boxed him in. Now, he is under severe pressure to act decisively against Iran if the need arises. The strong language he has employed recently raises expectations both domestically and internationally for a U.S. response to any escalation by Tehran.
The implications of this strategy are significant. If Trump does decide to just go ahead and start air strikes in Iran, hostilities in the region could brew up very quickly. This move could trigger retaliatory attacks on US bases by Iranian forces. Doing nothing would damage his credibility and encourage enemies who may view inaction as a sign of weakness.
