The Politics of War |
The memorandum of understanding reportedly reached between the United States and Iran may prove politically convenient in the short term, but strategic convenience and strategic success are rarely the same thing.
If the reports are accurate, Washington has chosen a familiar path: de-escalation through accommodation. The administration can point to a reduction in tensions, avoid another prolonged military commitment in the Middle East, and reassure an American public weary of foreign wars. From a domestic political perspective, the logic is understandable. Midterm elections are never far away, and voters consistently rank inflation, immigration, and economic concerns above overseas conflicts.
However, the strategies and politics of war do not always coincide. Long-term security may suffer greatly from something that is advantageous for a political cycle. The main issue is straightforward: Iran’s government has not given up on its strategic goals.
The Islamic Republic continues to aim for supremacy in the region. It continues to support and arm proxy groups across the Middle East. It continues to see Israel as an illegitimate state and the United States as its main enemy. An agreement does not alter those underlying facts. Because of this, it’s possible that the US is merely delaying rather than ending the conflict.
In fact, Washington will face the same problem again in six to eight months, but under less favorable circumstances, if Iran takes advantage of the agreement’s breathing room to bolster internal security structures, replenish proxy networks, and rebuild military capabilities. Additionally, after declaring victory, the Trump administration will be compelled to launch another round of military operations against Iranian assets.
There are many instances in history of agreements and ceasefires that put an end to hostilities without addressing their underlying strategic causes. These arrangements frequently give the appearance of stability while only delaying the next crisis. If that happens, the United States won’t have gained the advantages of a strategic victory while paying the costs of military........