- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
- Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)
Trump: There were no injuries in the Iran attacks
(CNN) - Iran's challenging wave of ballistic missile attacks against Iraqi bases that house US forces left President Donald Trump with a fateful election.
Do you comply with your previous warnings of a strong response to the reprisals of Tehran over the death of General Qasem Soleimani? Or does it accept a possible signal from the regime that the limited nature of its own action shows that it wants a scaling, at least on the conventional battlefield?
Trump's decision could be due to what personality trait the president chooses to please.
Iran's decision to challenge Trump and attack the bases in which US troops live leaves the president divided between the hatred of looking weak and a new war in the Middle East that he promised to avoid but could have hindered.
Iran has already warned of a devastating response to any second series of US attacks, in a message that could fit both its national audience and Trump, so the ball is now firmly in the president's court.
- LOOK: Catch up: what we know so far about the attacks on bases that house US troops
If neither side flickers, the United States could be on the verge of its first hot war with revolutionary Iran after 40 years of power conflicts, bitter rhetoric and short-term diplomatic thaw.
Or each of the enemies could consider his honor preserved after several days of inflammatory exchanges and move away from the cusp of a confrontation that threatens to get out of control.
Such relaxation would not calm the fundamental tensions between the United States and Iran. Tehran is likely to intensify its efforts to expel the US. of the region, perhaps through attacks that are more difficult to attribute directly through power forces. Washington is not in the mood to give in to political, economic and diplomatic pressure on Tehran, which is more and more like an effort to overthrow the regime.
But it could stop before the war that both sides insist they don't want to.
Multiple US officials told CNN that there is a growing belief among some administration officials that Iran's missile attacks did not intentionally impact areas with large populations of Americans so as not to provoke a massive US response.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will be informed in that regard on Wednesday and then speak with the president, officials said.
Adjusting Iran's message in this way would allow the administration to argue that its hard approach worked and that it went ahead after eliminating Iran's most important leader: Soleimani. But neither would it hide the fact that Trump's elections led directly to the threshold of a disastrous conflict.
If war broke out, it would be a Trump creation and a product of an impetuous and threatening leadership style carved from the disdain of "America First" by traditional US diplomacy, made by an emotional president who acts by instinct rather than by strategy.
He would combine with Trump, and his emptied national security team, purged of moderating forces that could have stopped him before this point, against the theocratic rulers of Iran.
Now it seems that Trump's hardline policy towards the 40-year-old enemy of the United States, triggered by his withdrawal from a nuclear agreement from the Obama era, is close to achieving an inevitable outcome.
The administration says its policy of "maximum pressure" and punishment with economic sanctions is designed to force Iran to return to nuclear talks and abandon its regional misbehavior. It seems to have had the opposite effect.
A war with Iran could further tear apart the fabric of American political life, in the midst of Trump's impeachment battle, and a president seeking a second term in the November elections.
It could set the Middle East on fire even more than the Iraq War, unleash assaults of Iranian representatives on US targets and allies and stop the fight against ISIS. Given the opposition to Trump's tough policy on Iran among traditional allies, the United States could only face that battle.
How will Trump respond?
Trump now seems to have two options.
First, he can go ahead with his own threats and take another step in the escalation cycle with what he warned could be the disproportionate one of military force. In this scenario, and since Iran fired missiles at the Americans from its own territory, it seems inevitable that the United States will target Iranian territory. The pride of the Islamic Republic could dictate another movement towards total war.
"If Iran does something it should not be doing, it will suffer the consequences and with great force," the president told reporters at the Oval Office on Tuesday.
- VIDEO: This could be a war between Iran and the United States
Much will depend on how the United States evaluates Iran's attacks at al-Asad air base west of Baghdad and in Erbil, in the semi-autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq.
Trump could choose to accept Iran's game as his calibrated response to the murder of Soleimani and contain the wrath of the US army. While Tehran shot directly at US troops, it could have taken measures that were more likely to cause massive US casualties.
But Trump never turns the other cheek. His mantra is that when you are attacked, you hit harder, a philosophy that seems to have informed the overwhelming shot at Soleimani, which surprised even some members of his own administration.
“Trump has already set a standard that he will take a massive retaliation. If he doesn't, I think he looks weak, ”said a source who recently spoke with the president to Jim Acosta of CNN.
Trump spoke at a press conference and said no Americans were injured. He added that Iran is apparently receding, and that it will impose new sanctions.
A possible pause
However, the most serious moment of a presidency flooded with shallow political controversies also pushes Trump in another direction.
The president's instinct is to remove American troops from danger everywhere. He sees deployments abroad as a waste of money. He promised the political base to which he remains infallibly loyal that he was different from the predecessors who failed in foreign entanglements, especially in Iraq.
“We don't want to be there forever; We want to be able to leave. I didn't want to be there in the first place, to be honest, ”Trump said, working on his conflict in the Oval Office.
Challenging some expectations, the United States did not retaliate immediately on Tuesday.
"Now is the time for patience and moderation," said a senior administration official.
The president seemed to radiate relief that Americans were not killed in the attacks, despite reports of Iraqi casualties.
"Everything is fine! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Victim and damage assessment are taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well-equipped army in the whole world, with a lot of difference! I will make a statement tomorrow morning, ”Trump tweeted.
Confirmation that no American died could offer Trump room for maneuver to avoid large-scale reprisals against Iran.
The president decided not to make a speech from the Oval Office to the nation on Tuesday night after the news of Iran's attacks was heard. This potentially wise move saved him from exposing his reputation during an ongoing action.
Perhaps the pause gave Trump time to reflect.
Retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, a CNN military analyst, advised moderation and conveyed a printed lesson about the nation's recent history.
"It's very easy to fall into a war and start one, it's much harder to get out of one," Hertling said.
The top Democrat in the Senate Foreign Relations Commission, New Jersey Senator Robert Menéndez, urged Trump on Tuesday to withdraw from the confrontation before it is too late.
"We are at a critical juncture where we still have the opportunity to be responsible and pursue diplomatic channels," Menéndez said in a statement.
"The American people are not interested in getting involved in another endless war in the Middle East without a clear goal or strategy."
Political consequences
A key question in the coming days is whether a 'divide and conquer' president can unite the nation behind him if the situation deteriorates further.
There are already serious rumors in Capitol Hill about the administration's refusal to reveal the intelligence that, according to Trump, proves that Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks.
Defense Secretary Mark Esper told Christiane Amanpour of CNN that intelligence was "more than thin," but he also argued that "time was due," making it appear that Soleimani's record was as important as his intention. .
The debate over time may seem irrelevant since there is no doubt that Soleimani was a sworn enemy of the United States with American blood on his hands.
But if the administration used inadequate intelligence as an excuse to eliminate it as part of an ideological policy on Iran, it will raise the question of whether the cost justified the risk.
In coordinating his response to the murder of Soleimani, Iran adopted a remarkable political approach, which seemed to consciously accumulate political pressure on the President, perhaps in the belief that he does not want to go down in history to start a war.
- MORE: What you need to know about the military bases attacked by Iranian missiles
Al-Asad air base was familiar to him: it was where he landed during his only trip to Iraq in December 2018.
The Iranians also stressed, amid a barrage of bellicose comments possibly addressed to a national audience, that the response was proportionate and was not intended to trigger a war.
"We are not seeking escalation or war, but we will defend ourselves against any aggression," tweeted Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, in what was possibly a veiled offer of an informal truce.
Days after a high-ranking State Department official told reporters that, by killing Soleimani, the United States was talking to the regime in Tehran in the language understood by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seemed to penetrate Trump's speech in a statement.
“I said during a speech at that time (from the presidency of Barack Obama) that the time to hit and run is over. If you hit, they hit you back, ”said the ayatollah in an undated video posted in Tehran.
Donald Trump