Trump approved attacks on Iran, then pulled back
President Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing an American surveillance drone, but pulled back from launching them on Thursday night after a day of escalating tensions.
As late as 7 p.m., military and diplomatic officials were expecting a strike, after intense discussions and debate at the White House among the president’s top national security officials and congressional leaders, according to multiple senior administration officials involved in or briefed on the deliberations.
Officials said the president had initially approved attacks on a handful of Iranian targets, like radar and missile batteries.
The operation was underway in its early stages when it was called off, a senior administration official said. Planes were in the air and ships were in position, but no missiles had been fired when word came to stand down, the official said.
The abrupt reversal put a halt to what would have been the president’s third military action against targets in the Middle East. Mr. Trump had struck twice at targets in Syria, in 2017 and 2018.
It was not clear whether Mr. Trump simply changed his mind on the strikes or whether the administration altered course because of logistics or strategy. It was also not clear whether the attacks might still go forward.
Asked about the plans for a strike and the decision to hold back, the White House declined to comment, as did Pentagon officials. No government officials asked The New York Times to withhold the article. [Continue reading…]
Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky write:
The Trump administration has conveyed no clear or realistic goals that would be served by the use of military force against Iran. Iran is too big and strong to be toppled, and there is no strong, united opposition capable of fomenting the kind of unrest that could overthrow the regime in the wake of U.S. military strikes.
If the regime did collapse, it would likely be followed either by a period of instability or a government that is even more militantly anti-American.
In response to more limited U.S. military attacks, Iran has many options available to raise the cost for the U.S. and its friends in the region — including in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan.
There is no reason to believe that Iran’s supreme leader is prepared to suffer the humiliation of returning to negotiations and caving to U.S. demands, especially since it was the Trump administration that walked away from an agreement with which the Iranians were complying. And there is no evidence that President Trump is willing to offer Iran concessions to lure Tehran back to the table.
Furthermore, going to war without any clearly defined and attainable war aims is a recipe for an open-ended conflict almost certain to undermine U.S. interests and credibility. [Continue reading…]
The most important variable in the current Persian Gulf confrontation is time. The Trump administration wants to play a long game, to draw the sanctions tourniquet ever tighter. Iran needs to play a short game, to escape the U.S. chokehold before it becomes fatal.
This inner dynamic helps explain the past month’s events in the gulf — Iran’s steady escalation of deniable strikes and President Trump’s relatively restrained military response. Each side has a different playbook, dictated by its interests, resources and ability to sustain operations.
Both nations tiptoed closer to the edge Thursday, as Iran shot down an RQ-4 Global Hawk drone near the Strait of Hormuz. Trump tweeted, “Iran made a very big mistake!” but the United States didn’t initially take any overt military action.
Here’s the danger ahead: Iran probably can’t break out of this squeeze play without creating a larger crisis that forces international intervention — perhaps an Iranian attack that kills Americans and triggers a harsh U.S. retaliation. The Trump administration doesn’t want such a war — at least, not yet — because officials know that with every day of sanctions, Iran becomes weaker. [Continue reading…]