Trump chose to go it alone against Iran. Now he’s learning the value of friends

You have reached your maximum number of saved items.

Remove items from your saved list to add more.

The idea that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan is a maxim that can be as readily applied to way nations approach problems in the Middle East as to many other areas of life. The Middle East is a complex region where patience, diplomacy and coalition-building often succeeds where military adventurism doesn’t. Wise leaders understand this, foolish ones don’t. And US President Donald Trump is neither a wise leader nor a coalition-builder.

More than six months into his promised six-week war, which has cost thousands of lives and more than $US37 billion ($52 billion) to date, the focus is now on the re-opening of a strategic waterway through which global energy resources passed freely the day before the Americans and the Israelis began their ill-conceived and ill-advised bombing campaign against Iran. Only this week the US again used military force when it bombed Iranian launchers on Larak Island , eliciting a response against targets in Jordan and the UAE from Iranian forces.

Guaranteeing freedom of passage for the world’s energy supplies was not one of the grab-bag of aims Trump enunciated for starting the war, which shows just how far he has strayed from his original justification.

Trump was elected on a promise that not only would there be no more wars (something he has since denied), but he would end wars. An admirable aspiration no doubt, but such aims require a coherent strategic vision, deft diplomatic skills, and a willingness to engage friends (and enemies). Trump’s oft-stated policy of “America First” runs counter to the idea of collaborative peace.

The latest illustration of Trump’s bully pulpit approach to a region about which he knows little was highlighted by his threat last month to “bomb the shit out of Oman” if it got in the way of Washington’s plan to re-open the Strait of Hormuz. The Oman government has long prided itself on its reputation as an independent and discrete go-between on regional issues, particularly where Iran is concerned. Threatening to bomb it reflects Trump’s frustration with a region that has confounded far more capable presidents.

That is not to say that problems can’t be resolved by both diplomacy and the responsible use of force. But they require a team approach to have any chance of succeeding. US President George Bush snr spent months building a broad military coalition to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, gained United Nations approval to do so, and in 1991 refrained from continuing on to Baghdad to topple Saddam Hussein when there was immense pressure to do so. He knew his coalition would not hold if he did, nor did he have the international legal authority to do so. Clear aims, clear execution.

Compare that with the anaemic coalition of Britain, Australia and Poland that his son put together to invade Iraq in 2003. Another poorly thought out military operation with little understanding of the nature of the Iraqi state or the people, and an administration ill-equipped to resolve a complex problem caused by military adventurism. The anti-Islamic State Operation Inherent Resolve offers a different perspective again – a broad-based coalition with clear aims and the strategic patience to outlast a persistent enemy.

A complex security problem in the Middle East that has been effectively addressed over an extended period.

The same issues apply to a nuclear Iran. Following additional sanctions it imposed on Iran the Obama administration put together a broad coalition that included the members of the UN Security Council, and the European Union to find a way of placing verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for some sanctions relief. The subsequent agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action implemented in 2016, was imperfect for sure, but it achieved a diplomatic outcome that limited Iran’s nuclear program without the need for military action.

The sanctions were effective and had a purpose – to limit the most serious security concern the international community had about Iran.

The first Trump administration tore up the agreement and adopted a policy of “maximum pressure” by reimposing sanctions in the belief that he could get a better deal from the Iranians. Absent any support from other states for his policy and without any carrot offered to Iran, Trump’s punitive unilateral approach achieved nothing. In his second term, Trump has adopted a military approach to the nuclear issue. His sole ally in this endeavour has been Israel.

In prosecuting this war of choice President Trump has run down ammunition stocks, particularly of interceptors and its Army’s long-range, surface-to-surface precision missiles at an alarming rate. This denuding of the stockpile has not only hampered Washington’s ability to defend regional states who have been the subject of Iranian attacks in response to US and Israeli bombing of Iran, but it has also significantly weakened Ukrainian air defences.

To prosecute their disastrous war of choice with Iran, Israel and the United States have been willing to sacrifice Ukraine in its war of survival against Russia.

There is no doubt that significant damage has been caused to elements of Iran’s nuclear program, but the more important question is what has the bombing campaign done to Iran’s nuclear calculations. Prior to the bombing there was no evidence that Iran was looking to weaponise its program. In light of the US-Israeli military campaign and the stated desire to otherthrow its government, Tehran may well decide that its former policy of nuclear ambiguity is no longer sufficient.

Just as Trump and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confused an ability to prosecute targets from the air with their ability to shape Iran’s national will, their inability to bring down the revolutionary regime may well have set Tehran on a path to nuclear weaponisation that they weren’t on before.

Such is the law of unintended consequences that bedevils many who see simple solutions to complex security problems in the Middle East.

Dr Rodger Shanahan is a Middle East analyst and an expert associate at ANU’s National Security College.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here .