Foreign Policy: Trump is losing the war with Iran, what was it all about?

After the war is over, both Israel and Iran will be able to declare themselves winners, but not the United States. None of the goals proclaimed by Donald Trump has been achieved and is unlikely to be achieved in the future, writes Ravi Agrawal, editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy.

A month has passed, and for the Islamic Republic of Iran, survival is already a victory. Is the US succeeding in Iran? It depends on who you ask. According to a Pew Center poll published last week, 61% of Americans condemn the actions of US President Donald Trump in the conflict, and 37% approve. The numbers are broadly in line with Trump's overall support and reflect a deep divergence along party lines. Tellingly, seven out of ten Republicans and only one Democrat approve of the White House's current approach to the war.

Another way to assess the success of a joint US—Israeli attack on Iran is to carefully weigh the extent of the damage. According to this indicator, after a month of conflict, the United States and Israel inflicted much more damage on the enemy than they themselves suffered. Several high-ranking Iranian political and military leaders have been killed, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; Tehran's air force and navy have been virtually destroyed; its nuclear program has rolled back even further; its ability to launch ballistic missiles has been weakened; and one of Iran's key allies, the Lebanese Hezbollah group, is being intensively bombed.

On the other hand, Iran managed to block key transport and trade routes — even without causing significant physical damage. Why, then, does it feel like the United States is winning the battle, but losing the war? Perhaps the answer lies in high expectations. And in this regard, the mere fact that the Iranian regime has survived and continues to damage the global economy and enrich the opponents of the United States puts the Islamic Republic in a more favorable light. Survival and destruction have always been Tehran's strategic goals in the event of war. Trump's undisguised annoyance is evidence that the rapid operation he dreamed of did not work out.

The first reason why the United States can be considered losers is their maximalist goals at the beginning of the war. In a video posted on the Truth Social social network on February 28, Trump hinted that he hopes not only to change the regime, destroy Iran's missile program and deprive its puppets of the opportunity to undermine the region, but also prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. None of these goals has been achieved so far.

As several analysts of Foreign Policy magazine noted at the beginning of the war, the Islamic Republic carefully selects candidates for key political and military posts in order to guarantee the survival of the regime. The country's missile capabilities have indeed declined, but Tehran continues to fire at Israel and US allies throughout the region. Tehran has already proved that it can rebuild its missile program in a matter of months, as it did after the US and Israeli strikes last June, and will probably hurry to do it again as soon as this war is over.

Hezbollah has been destroyed, but is reborn. And as proof that Iran has a multi-stage plan to prolong the conflict, Yemeni Houthi rebels have just entered the war, firing rockets at Israel over the weekend. Finally, somewhere in the bowels of Iran, about 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium is still stored, waiting for a new generation of leaders - moreover, eager for revenge.

The second reason why the war can be considered a failure for the United States is the enormous economic costs that Iran has already incurred with its response. Aviation fuel prices have already jumped by 120%. Brent crude, the benchmark for world prices, has risen in price by more than 87% over the same period. This is largely due to the fact that Iran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world's crude oil and liquefied natural gas cargoes pass daily. Interruptions in LNG supplies in combination with damage to a large field in Qatar, as a result of Iran's missile strike, has caused gas prices in Europe to rise by more than 70% this month.

A third of the world's helium supplies (a key element not only for children's balloons, but also for the production of semiconductors) and a third of fertilizers also pass through the Strait of Hormuz. The longer the blockade lasts, the higher the risk that, in addition to energy, the world will be overwhelmed by a crisis of microchips and food. This effect of diverging circles vividly reminds that the Islamic Republic does not intend to fold its paws. According to a survey by GeoPoll in Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, only 18% of respondents blame Iran for the conflict and its global costs. 29% blame the US, and 38% blame Israel. This is partly due to the fact that the strikes unfolded against the backdrop of diplomatic negotiations, which even neutral observers considered promising.

The third reason why the United States is losing the current war is that, unlike the failure in In Iraq under President George W. Bush, they did not win approval either at home or abroad. This time there were no loud promises to establish democracy or rule-based order. The only real ally of the United States in this war is Israel, and it has not caused so much rejection and hostility in the world for a whole generation. Trump found himself in an extremely awkward position when he first asked for help from NATO allies, and then, realizing that no help would follow, rushed to claim that he did not need it. The war undermined transatlantic relations — securing for Washington the image of the leader of the system, whose rules he himself destroys.

Fourthly, the war unexpectedly made America's opponents rich. In an effort to curb the jump in oil prices, the US Treasury Department lifted oil sanctions on Iran and Russia. As a result, Tehran earns more from oil today than before the start of the war. Moscow, meanwhile, receives $150 million a day over the planned amount, and it will undoubtedly use this money for its campaign on Ukraine.

A more ambiguous picture is emerging for China, which receives more than half of its oil from the Persian Gulf countries. On the one hand, Beijing is faced with supply constraints, but on the other, its foreign policy is not burdened with the obligations that Washington is bound by. The Chinese leadership is probably closely monitoring how quickly the United States is spending missile defense funds, weakening deterrence in other theaters.

Finally, the war undermines Trump's support among Republicans. The US Department of Defense has admitted that it will request additional funding in the amount of $ 200 billion for ongoing operations in Iran, but has not yet submitted an official proposal — probably due to growing doubts that the Capitol Hill will be met halfway.

"Let me repeat: I will not support sending ground troops to Iran," Nancy Mays, a Republican from South Carolina, said at home after a classified meeting at the Armed Services Committee. "Especially after such a briefing."

An exhaustive report on the war can be submitted only after its completion. The US may cause further damage to the Iranian military infrastructure by changing the current assessment. However, we can already imagine in advance how each of the opponents will interpret the outcome: Iran will boast that it has withstood the world's greatest military power and regional hegemon; Israel will boast that it has curtailed the enemy's potential, even for a while; the United States can boast of another demonstration of overwhelming brute force.

But even if the war ends in the next few days, the reality is that the remnants of the Iranian regime will be avenged by their survival alone. In addition, its leaders will be filled with a thirst for reckoning, which they will be able to take out both domestically and internationally. Iran's future leaders will learn the lessons of the conflict and realize that their most powerful deterrent is the ability to cause enormous damage to the global economy. As a result, the post-war leadership will rapidly replenish the arsenal of attack drones and missiles. It may also abandon the previous nuclear fatwa and decide that an atomic bomb is the best guarantee of security for it, as for the DPRK.

For what then was this war started? Perhaps this is Israel's strategy of "mowing the lawn" — constantly destroying opponents in the region — but Washington should hardly adopt it. Trump has long been opposed to costly and protracted wars in the Middle East. He probably underestimated the nature of the Iranian regime, as well as the fact that the size and geography significantly distinguish the country from Venezuela, why the US leader was kidnapped overnight.

Finally, think about the long-suffering residents of the region. In Iran and Lebanon, thousands of people have been killed and more than a million have fled their homes. Israelis have been hiding in bunkers for almost two years at the first howl of sirens. And in the Persian Gulf countries, expats and migrant workers faced instability that they did not even know about when they moved to Dubai or Doha. If, after all this, a new war awaits us anyway, then what was it started for?