What happened? Iran became too hard for the White House.
Trump was in search of a quick win. He believed that removing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the initial strike on February 28 would topple the regime. It did not.
Instead, to his surprise, he got a resilient Iran. After 38 days, he lost his nerve to complete the task — even though, by all metrics, Admiral Brad Cooper’s military campaign was on a glide path to achieve its objectives. Given more time, it would have eventually toppled the terrorist regime, provided peace to the region after decades of conflict, and reopened the Strait of Hormuz on his terms. These were Trump’s objectives.
But that all changed on April 7. Trump apparently lost his strategic patience and political will and handed a win to an Iran on the verge of collapse.
He tried to spin the agreement on Truth Social, saying that the U.S. had “exceeded all his military objectives.” But this is not winning.
Trump was looking for an off ramp, and he found one through Pakistani intermediaries. He did not want to have to follow through on this threat to destroy all power plants and bridges in Iran, let alone “wipe out a whole civilization” — whatever his intentions were in posting such a preposterous thing in the first place. For many, the ultimatum sounded like the oft-quoted phrase from the Vietnam War about how “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”
It may have been hyperbole — more Art of the Deal hot air — but sometimes words matter. This was one of those times, and the anti-Trump regime quickly seized upon them.
The comments drew criticism from political opponents and from some Republicans as well. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) led the pushback: “The president of the United States is ranting like an unhinged madman on social media. … He’s threatening possible war crimes and alienating allies. This is who he is, but this is not who we are. Our country deserves so much better.”
Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) added that the attacks “would be a clear violation of the law of armed conflict. … I hope and believe our troops — especially those in command — will have the moral clarity to push back if they are given illegal orders.”
Under the Law of War, bridges and infrastructure (civilian objects) are considered protected structures that “must be respected and protected at all times and cannot be attacked, provided they are not used for military purposes.”
But the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps have indeed used bridges and underpasses to hide their mobile missile launchers. They maneuver military equipment and personnel across them, and they have staged mobile missile launchers concealed in trucks in urban areas. Basij paramilitary forces have also set-up checkpoints under bridges. These clear violations of protected structures makes them legitimate military targets.
Iran mostly dismissed a U.S. 15-point proposal, countering instead with a diametrically opposed 10-point proposal that leaves the regime in power and its proxies intact.
This apparently provided a “workable basis on which to negotiate.” But it is based on a single point — the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which the U.S. could have accomplished militarily on its own.
And what was gained by doing it this way? A severely wounded regime remains in power, still led by the fanatics of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — only now from the front rather than from behind a Supreme Leader.
Iran maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz and will likely impose a tax on ships passing through it. They are in a position to dictate the flow and cost of oil to a global market.
Even worse, 440 kg of 60 percent enriched uranium remains unaccounted for. And Iran’s ballistic missile program, proven capable of reaching European capitals, remains intact. This will make for a lethal combination when (not if) Iran weaponizes its enriched uranium to 90 percent.
The regime’s center of gravity remains intact. Basij paramilitary forces will undoubtedly continue to target Iranian citizens and resume public executions. This is the same regime Trump told us had killed 45,000 of its own people prior to the war. A witch hunt will ensue, and blood will be on Trump’s hands.
The regime will continue to threaten its Gulf State neighbors, Israel and Iranian citizens. Speaking of whom, the Iranian citizens somehow did not get a vote in this matter, much like Ukraine never seems to get a vote in the U.S.-led negotiations for a peace deal with Russia.
Meanwhile, Operation Epic Fury further fractured the relationship between the U.S. and NATO, leading Trump to threaten to withdraw from the alliance when partner nations refused to support the U.S. effort.
As talks begin, it seems likely Iran is taking a page right out of the Russian playbook — survival through endless negotiations and broken promises. While Iran may have agreed to the “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz,” their navy reportedly warned foreign ships on Wednesday that they will be “destroyed” if they attempt to cross the Strait of Hormuz without permission from Tehran.
To leave this regime severely wounded but intact is a mistake.
Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as a military intelligence officer and led the US European Command Intelligence Engagement Division from 2012 to 2014. Mark Toth writes on national security and foreign policy. They are the co-founders of INTREP360 and the INTREP360 Intelligence Report on Substack.
