Donald Trump's war dilemma: Should America put boots on the ground in Iran or not?

There is little doubt that Iran’s ruling clerics have not only been defeated, but also shown up to be incompetent. They caused Iran to suffer the pain of US sanctions for over two decades but Iran is nowhere close to a nuclear bomb. The regime’s approach of using terrorist,  sub-conventional and state proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria has come undone. Iranian missiles and drones have caused some damage in Israel  but not enough to deter Tel Aviv from stepping up its attacks.

That, however, does not mean that the US and Israel can achieve their political objective of eliminating Iran as a threat to their interests.

Also Read: Israel-Iran conflict: Echoes of history haunt West Asia

Indeed, since 1990—in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen—the US was able to pummel its targets using massive air power and dislodge incumbent regimes, but could not establish its desired political order. Deploying ground troops did not work either. 

The US committed thousands of troops and billions of dollars to its war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to be forced into ignominious withdrawals, leaving these countries in the hands of even more unsavoury regimes than the ones it toppled. Little wonder that public opinion in the US is strongly against fighting ‘forever wars’ in far-flung regions.

War proponents in Tel Aviv and Washington suggest that a combination of humiliation, decapitation and de- nuclearization will push Iran’s ruling ayatollahs out of power. Even if this were the case, it does not follow that the country’s theocracy will be succeeded by a docile leadership ready to surrender to the US or Israel. 

The clerical regime has long been unpopular among Iran’s urban middle classes, but there has been a surge of patriotism among the Iranian people since Israel launched its air strikes on 13 June. As much as assassinations of senior military leaders have damaged Iran’s military capability, decapitation could replace the old guard with fresh faces.

Also Read: Israel-Iran conflict: War and oil could both flare out of control

Israel’s destruction of Gaza has not endeared it to Iranians either. If the incumbent regime does not get a fresh lease of life, it is likely to be succeeded by nationalists or Islamists determined to keep their country united and fight its external aggressors.

If the US and Israel do not engage in a ground war, they would leave the job half done. If Iran descends into political turmoil—with various militant groups fighting each other for power—then there is a risk that such a conflict will spread across West Asia, destabilizing the entire region. It is unclear if Washington, Tel Aviv or their Arab and European allies have the credibility and diplomatic wherewithal to construct a political order that can stabilize the region. The existence of oil and gas reserves in the region and its proximity to key shipping bottlenecks could transmit the pain to the rest of the world.

Washington will find few partners ready to commit troops to manage the mess that will result from toppling the Iranian theocracy. The Trump administration has antagonized its Nato allies while Europe is preoccupied with the Russian threat. As for the Gulf’s Arab monarchies, it will be very difficult for them to be seen supporting Israel.

It is unclear if anyone reminded US President Donald Trump of former secretary of state Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule—“You break it, you own it"—before he decided to bomb Iran. The  US is almost at that point. If Tehran retaliates by targeting US troops in the region, Washington will have to increase its commitment to the war, taking it again to the question of boots on the ground.

Also Read: Mint Explainer | Strait of Hormuz: Will Iran shut the vital oil artery of the world?

Now, it is possible that domestic politics will cause Washington to walk away from the region, leaving it in a crisis. In that event, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan will rush to fill the void either by crossing borders or by backing their proxies not only in Iran, but also in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. It is impossible to estimate what the eventual outcome of these wars will be, but  it will bring insecurity to Israel and the Gulf Arab states. Oil and insurance  prices will likely rise, affecting the fiscal positions of countries with already tenuous budgets and balance of payments.

The US might still be a superpower, but it finds itself confronting a strategic dilemma. The more it dissipates its attention, money and military might fighting Iran, a regional player at best, the less it will have left to counter China, its strategic competitor for global power. On the other hand, withdrawing from the war will further damage its credibility, threaten its allies and exacerbate geo-economic risks.

How Trump will resolve the dilemma is anybody’s guess. Public opinion in general and in significant sections of  his MAGA Republican party base is against entanglement in a foreign war. Whether or not these are strong enough to prevail over pro-Israel constituencies in America remains to be seen. It may well be that Trump’s perception of which option will make him look like a  winner will determine his next steps. I think he was being completely honest when he declared that no one knows what he will do. 

The author is co-founder and director of The Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy.