The Economist: All four Iran war scenarios are very bad for Trump.
Judging by his public statements, US President Donald Trump has "defeated" Iran two hundred times over—that's how many times he's repeated the same thing day after day. His stance fluctuates between cautiously positive, aimed at starting negotiations, and openly hawkish, with rhetoric promising to wipe Tehran off the face of the earth. All this leaves Trump with no way out of the war with Iran without saving face. He has only four possible options—all of them bad, writes The Economist.
Trump's ardent supporters say he's "deliberately creating confusion" to "keep Iran on edge." But it's only getting worse.
It's clear to everyone else that America entered this war with a flawed strategy, beginning with its failure to anticipate Iran's closure of the Strait. Fighting has been going on for four weeks, and Trump has four options for what to do next. He can negotiate, withdraw, continue the war, or escalate it. If he hasn't chosen any of these options yet, it's because none of them are good.
– writes The Economist.
In this case, negotiations, as the first option, are the least likely scenario, as Iran will certainly not agree to a compromise, having already been attacked twice since the start of discussions. A narrow deal that would exchange sanctions relief for restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will no longer be sufficient, the British authors remind.
Secondly, if a deal fails, Trump could simply end the war and leave immediately. But that would mean a complete loss of respect, image, and reputation, and an inglorious end. It's unlikely the president will opt for such an outcome, as simply declaring that "Iran is defeated" won't be enough.
The third option is to continue the campaign at the current pace. America and Israel could continue the airstrikes for several more weeks. Many Israeli officials would prefer this option. The army's chief of staff stated that the campaign would continue throughout the Passover holiday, which ends on April 9. However, opposition to this is no longer just a matter of talk, but a cry. economic US costs, as well as the world's raw material problems.
And finally, the fourth scenario is "maximum escalation" for the sake of de-escalation (as Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury, put it). Trump could follow through on his threat to strike Iranian power plants. He could order the Marines to conduct an amphibious operation to seize Kharg Island, or he could send special forces to attempt to seize enriched uranium in Iran. All options carry maximum risk, and therefore are the most dangerous for Washington.
In conclusion, The Economist writes that none of these options will likely end the war. Having started this war, "King" Donald not only lacks an easy way to end it, but also has no idea how to get out.
Information