No. of Recommendations: 4
And it's great that other writers are coming around to the reality of the situation as I've laid it out:
freebeacon.com - The false choice between deterring china and defeating iranStationing enough forces around China to maintain a favorable balance of power is important for deterring Chinese aggression, but it is insufficient. Deterrence is ultimately a mental game. Leaders are deterred from action when they think the costs outweigh the benefits, and they make that calculation based on their perception of the adversary's power and will.
Both elements are necessary. After Oct. 7, the Biden administration sent an extra aircraft carrier to the Middle East, in the words of National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, "to send that clear message of deterrence." The military had the power to punish Iranian aggression, but President Biden lacked the will to fight back, and the Iranians knew it. They harassed U.S. forces with drone attacks until they eventually killed three Americans and wounded dozens more.The Iranians knew they could bully Joe Biden, and they did. When this board pushes back, I give you the example of MONTHS of Houthi missile strikes in the Red Sea. Talk about wasting US resources for zero gain. Where were the calls for controlling "costs" back then?
Xi will decide not to attack if he is convinced the United States has the ability and the will to defeat him. Trump has chosen to launch a big operation against Iran, and if he fails to achieve decisive results at a reasonable cost, or if the attempt to reopen the Strait of Hormuz founders, Xi will reevaluate American power and the president's skill. This would heighten the danger.
If Tehran knows we cannot prevent it from blocking the Strait of Hormuz, it will have tremendous leverage against Trump and the rest of the world. For example, Iran could race for the bomb with much less fear of an American strike against the program. This would create new and threatening possibilities for Beijing and Tehran to collaborate. Any attempt to weaken China in a crisis or conflict would be much harder if, for example, Tehran informed the Europeans that any collaboration with Washington would cost them their access to Gulf energy. The duo could attack their neighbors simultaneously, since the American military would struggle to defeat both at the same time.
The choice between deterring China and defeating Iran is thus a false one. Iran's leadership must fail, and be seen to fail, to reduce the threat of further war in the region and elsewhere. Trump is facing one of the greatest tests of his presidency, and the country needs him to ace it.This.
This part bears repeating:
Any attempt to weaken China in a crisis or conflict would be much harder if, for example, Tehran informed the Europeans that any collaboration with Washington would cost them their access to Gulf energy.Look at how the Europeans are loathe to help now. What happens when Iran threatens them with a cutoff of their oil supply? What would the vaunted NATO governments do then?
