It seems increasingly evident that the White House rushed into war with Iran without fully considering the potential consequences. That is all the more reason to hasten the conflict’s end.
After nearly three weeks of fighting, the US is reaching the limits of what air power can accomplish. Although US and Israeli strikes have destroyed thousands of military targets and killed dozens of top officials, including Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime remains unbowed. Its drone and missile attacks on neighboring countries and on container ships hoping to transit the Strait of Hormuz have paralyzed the Gulf region. Oil prices are surging; industries from agriculture to semiconductors fear shortages of key inputs. Inflation worries are spreading.
Expanding airstrikes seems more likely to increase collateral damage and turn the population against the West than to break the regime. Replacing the government — now said to be led by Khamenei’s equally hard-line son, Mojtaba — would require tens if not hundreds of thousands of US troops. Even narrower ground missions such as seizing the more than 440 kilograms of near-weapons-grade uranium thought to be buried under Iranian nuclear facilities, capturing the Kharg Island oil export hub or occupying swathes of the coastline in order to protect shipping would dramatically raise the odds of another Middle East quagmire. Worryingly, a Marine expeditionary unit is reportedly now headed for the region.
The White House has a better option: Declare victory and de-escalate. It has already laid the groundwork for such a pivot. After the president demanded “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” and veto power over Iran’s new leaders on March 6, his administration has mostly emphasized more achievable goals: degrading Iran’s ballistic missile stockpiles, launchers and production capacity; sinking its regular navy; and setting back its nuclear program. By those criteria, the president is not entirely crazy to claim: “We’ve won.”
Critics argue the US cannot afford to leave the job half done. Iran retains enough highly enriched uranium to make at least 10 bombs, although the state of the rest of its nuclear infrastructure is unclear. Security forces, although weakened, remain strong enough to suppress dissent. The regime could rebuild its drone arsenal at relatively low cost. Most important, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) likely retains enough anti-ship missiles, drones and sea mines to close off the strait when it chooses, effectively holding its Gulf neighbors and the global economy hostage.
Yet those risks must be weighed against the alternatives. The US and Israel are unlikely to find and hit every last mobile missile launcher, nuclear centrifuge or IRGC commander even with several more weeks of bombing. Meanwhile, the costs of continued airstrikes are not negligible. The Pentagon spent more than US$11 billion in just the first six days of the campaign. Ships, planes, troops and air-defense batteries have been diverted from other theaters, alarming allies. The fighting is depleting supplies of hard-to-replace interceptors and long-range missiles, which are critical to deterring China.
More to the point, the threat has arguably been contained. Although Iran’s leaders would no doubt declare victory when the US ceases hostilities, the regime has been gravely wounded. It would need time and money to rebuild its military capabilities, let alone its devastated proxy network. Meanwhile, it would face abiding hostility from its neighbors and from its own citizens. Sanctions would continue to strangle Iran’s economy while its skies would remain exposed to US or Israeli strikes.
Unless the US has more high-value targets to hit that would further degrade Iran’s nuclear program, the White House should bring this campaign to a close, making sure the regime knows that conflict could resume if Iran interferes with shipping or initiates any attacks, and that any sanctions relief would have to await a credible nuclear deal. In its own Mideast misadventure, a previous US administration declared “mission accomplished” too quickly. This one would be wise not to delay too long.
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
RSS