Like Cato the Elder, we should keep returning to the fundamental question: What is the United States' endgame in Iran?
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2064673049060802856
Like Cato the Elder, we should keep returning to the fundamental question: What is the United States' endgame in Iran?
First, President Trump can choose to launch additional strikes against Iran. However, there is little reason to believe that such actions would compel Tehran to surrender or abandon what it considers its core red lines.
Second, a return to military confrontation would likely further destabilize the global economy and push the prospect of a negotiated agreement farther away rather than bring it closer.
Third, even if President Trump is considering renewed military action, it remains difficult to understand the strategic rationale given that the same administration has repeatedly expressed its desire to reach an agreement with Iran. It is possible that the threat of force is intended to increase pressure on Tehran and extract concessions, but there is little evidence that such pressure would alter Iran's fundamental positions. Tehran's red lines are unlikely to change.
Fourth, any strike on Iranian infrastructure would almost certainly trigger a significant Iranian response. At the same time, if Washington issues threats that it ultimately does not carry out, it risks further undermining the credibility of its deterrence posture at a moment when Iran has already absorbed substantial setbacks.
For that reason, the key question is not whether the United States should strike Iran or refrain from doing so. The real question is how Washington's current policy serves its broader strategic objective. If that objective is to secure a diplomatic agreement, then additional military threats or strikes are more likely to complicate that goal than to advance it.
#Iran
#IranWar
posted by Satish Sharma at
13:32
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home