Trump’s threat to bomb Iran is delusional: coercion by airpower rarely works,and regime change requires ground forces which he opposes.Bombing will harden Iranian resolve, not force concessions. Without boots on the ground, military action risks escalation into the very quagmire Trump vowed to avoid
Once again, President Donald Trump has threatened to bomb Iran. This time, however, it appears likely to actually happen. With nuclear talks faltering and the deployment of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the region, an attack on Iran is now seemingly a matter of when, rather than if.
The administration’s goal seems to stop Iran’s enrichment of uranium, and, should that fail, regime change. Though candidate Trump denounced regime change on the campaign trail, President Trump seems to favor it. Essentially, it seems the administration hopes to flex America’s military muscle to intimidate Iran into agreeing to nuclear concessions. Should this not work, the United States will probably seek to overthrow the Iranian regime without becoming bogged down in another ground war in the Middle East.
This line of thinking is rose-tinted at best and delusional at worst. Threatening to coerce Iran to agree to America’s nuclear demands will almost fail. Conversely, bombing Iran is unlikely to take down the current government, which has shrugged off previous rounds of bombing and has contingency plans in place for future ones. Even if by some miracle the Islamic Republic were to fall, there is little guarantee that whatever succeeds it will be stable or more friendly to America’s interests.
Regime Change Doesn’t Work from the Air
Using military force to change a country’s behavior rarely works. Legitimacy is vital for all governments, including non-democratic ones. Leaders never want to be perceived as weak or appeasing to the enemy, all of which can undermine their legitimacy. This is especially the case with Iranian leaders today, who recently faced protests and continue to face massive discontent among the population. At such a precarious moment, the last thing Iran’s leaders desire is to appear weak against one of their archenemies.
In other words, blackmailing Iran’s government to give up its nuclear weapons further incentivizes Tehran to dig in its heels. According to political scientists Kelly Greenhill and Peter Krause, using force to compel a country to stop a certain action has only been successful in around 35 percent of historical cases. This statistic alone should deter the administration from attempting to use force to coerce Iran into a nuclear deal. With limited US interests at stake, the Trump administration should avoid the risk of failing to coerce Iran into a nuclear deal.
Given that it is improbable for the United States to compel Iran to give up its nuclear stockpile, the Trump administration seems likely to bomb its government to overthrow it—or, the thinking goes, at least pound it into favorable terms at the negotiating table. This won’t work, either. Strategically bombing countries to force a political settlement almost never works: instead, it strengthens the resolve of the enemy to resist. Cases of this include the Blitz during World War II, Operation Linebacker during the Vietnam War, and even Russia’s bombing campaign during the ongoing war in Ukraine, where Russian missile and drone attacks on Kyiv have failed to coerce Ukrainian leaders into agreeing to an unfavorable political settlement.
This is not to say that air power has no use in war; it is useful in destroying an enemy’s military capabilities and helps protect ground forces from enemy aerial attacks. But as a tool of coercion, it is useless. Such misguided thinking is traced back to immediately after the Gulf War, where defense analysts at the time thought that America’s new technology changed the nature of warfare and that war could be won on the cheap. Yet the bombing of Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait in 1991, and then in Iraq proper in 2003, did not win those wars for the United States. Boots on the ground did.
Trump Is Headed for a Military Occupation of Iran
Since airpower alone is incapable of overthrowing the Iranian regime, ground forces must be used. This means that the bombing of Iran will likely lead to a ground invasion of the country. Unless US boots are on the ground, there is no way to verify that Iranian government forces are defeated—and that insurgents or worse actors are prevented from filling the vacuum.
Given this likely escalation to American boots on the ground, the administration should avoid bombing Iran in the first place. History shows time and time again that policymakers who think they can control world events and military escalation instead find themselves being controlled by those very forces. For instance, the George W. Bush administration, which President Trump continuously criticized for its endless wars, was initially opposed to nation-building and sought to use minimal force to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime. Instead, the Bush administration ended up nation-building in Iraq and becoming bogged down in a quagmire. The Trump administration could easily find themselves in a similar situation with Iran.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the fiercest proponents of executive power, asserted that the president has the duty to “preserve peace till war is declared,” while only Congress has the power to declare war. This line of reasoning should be applicable to America’s current commander-in-chief. Trump has the duty to preserve peace. Bombing Iran would disrupt that peace. The buck stops with him and him alone. Whatever consequences come from this potentially unconstitutional and dimwitted bombing of Iran, Trump will be solely responsible. The administration should think long and hard about its next move.