DONALD TRUMP MUST STOP SOON / THE ECONOMIST

War in the Middle East

Donald Trump must stop soon

His ill-considered conflict risks descending into chaos

IT IS RARE for one head of government to order the death of another. 

Yet on February 28th America’s president and Israel’s prime minister did just that, killing Iran’s 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

The decapitation of the Iranian regime reflects the devastating operational success of “Operation Epic Fury”. 

But Mr Khamenei’s place was immediately taken by a triumvirate. 

The next supreme leader could be named soon—perhaps his own son unless he, too, is killed. 

That augurs something more subtle and worrying: that the operation is failing to achieve its political goals.

It is naive to say, as some of Mr Trump’s cheerleaders do, that because Mr Khamenei was wicked (and he surely was), any sort of war makes sense. 

When you command a machine as lethal and overwhelming as America’s armed forces, united in this operation with the battle-hardened Israel Defence Forces, you have a special responsibility to define what you want to achieve. 

That is not only an ethical requirement; it is a practical one, too. 

War aims direct the campaign; they define the sacrifices the state imposes on its own people and the enemy; and they determine when the fighting should end.

In this war, Israel’s aim is clear: to demolish the threat posed by Iran’s regime. 

By contrast, Mr Trump and his cabinet have offered a mess of shifting assertions—about Iran’s missiles, nuclear weapons, regime change, following Israel’s lead, a “feeling” Iran was about to attack and settling scores after decades of enmity. 

Politically, vagueness gives Mr Trump room for manoeuvre. 

Strategically, his failure to say what Epic Fury is for is its biggest vulnerability.

The result is a split-personality war. 

One face is operational. 

America and Israel have destroyed Iran’s navy and grounded its air force. 

They are wrecking its missile capability and its arms industry and targeting the regime and its brutal enforcers. 

Dominance of the skies means that America and Israel can fight on at will. 

Interceptor missiles are meanwhile defending bases and cities in Israel and the Gulf countries, even as Iran strikes at more targets than it did during the conflict last June. 

So far, at least, there are enough interceptors to keep going.

The other face of this war is political, and it emerges from Iran’s strategy, which is about sowing doubt and confusion. 

To survive would count as victory for Iran’s regime. 

So far, it is succeeding. 

Far from falling apart, it is rushing to escalate horizontally—a fancy way of saying it is lashing out in all directions. 

This has a number of consequences.

One is that other countries are being sucked in. Iran has attacked the Gulf states, which have bet their future on being havens from the chaos gripping the rest of the Middle East. 

Fighting has also erupted in Lebanon as Israel smashes Hizbullah, Iran’s main proxy. 

France and Britain will defend their bases from attack. 

On March 4th NATO air defences shot down an Iranian missile bound for Turkey.

Another consequence is economic. 

Iran has tried to shut the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off perhaps 20% of global oil supplies. 

It has also struck energy infrastructure, including the world’s biggest gas-liquefaction complex and Saudi Arabia’s largest refinery. 

The price of Brent crude is up by 14% since February 27th, to $83 a barrel. 

A megawatt-hour of natural gas in Europe costs €54 ($63), over 70% more than last week. 

As Asian buyers scramble for supplies, prices could go higher. 

The global economy could yet suffer a hit. 

If oil reaches $100 a barrel, GDP growth could be lowered by 0.4 percentage points and inflation raised by 1.2 points.

The third potential consequence is chaos inside Iran. 

Roughly 40% of its 90m people belong to ethnic minorities, including Arabs, Azeris, Baluchis, Kurds and Lurs. 

The Arab spring showed how countries can fall apart. 

America and Israel are putting pressure on the regime by backing Kurdish insurgents—a reckless idea that could end up stoking Persian nationalism or civil war. 

Mr Trump may not care about this, but he could not ignore the effects spilling over Iran’s borders into the Gulf states, Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

The risk is that Mr Trump cannot bear to quit so long as the markets and polls deny him the acclamation he craves—and that may last for as long as Iran can release even sporadic missiles and drones. 

Today barely a third of Americans favour the battle in Iran (90% backed invading Afghanistan in 2001). 

America may be an energy exporter, but its voters detest costly petrol. 

He may be tempted to seek an undeniable win by bombing the regime out of existence. 

But even with America’s military clout, he might not succeed. 

Meanwhile all those risks would continue to harm the region and the world economy.

Mr Trump would do better to narrow his war aims. 

His goal should be to degrade Iran’s military capabilities and then stop. 

He is almost there.

Some will argue that the job would be only half-done. 

Obviously, leaving the regime as a wounded beast would be heartbreak for the oppressed Iranian people. 

Even if Mr Trump wants peace, Iran could continue to lash out for a while, at least, revelling in its status as a symbol of anti-American resistance. 

The surviving regime may reject a nuclear deal—indeed, like North Korea, it may think a bomb is its only protection. 

If it rebuilds its nuclear programme, Mr Trump may have to strike again in months’ or years’ time. 

It is a bleak prospect. 

But it would be better for America to declare victory early than limp out of an unpopular war because of exhaustion.

Less fury, more forethought

These are the fruits of Mr Trump’s impulsive approach. 

Before this war, Iran’s regime was weaker than at any time in its 47-year history: it could have fallen without a single American bomb. 

Mr Trump may get lucky, but he is more likely to end up having to deal with regional chaos or a new hardliner. 

Surrounded by sycophantic courtiers, Mr Trump has become rash in his second term. 

His opportunistic grabs for power whenever he sees weakness are dangerous. 

America needs a strategy in Iran, just as it needs one in the world.