The Obvious Is Taking Its Revenge on Trump

"The 12-day war, which Israel and the United States fought last June, demonstrated that they could strike Iran without provoking catastrophic retaliation. Having endured that assault on the country's military infrastructure, and then wave after wave of protest by its own citizens, the Islamic Republic was isolated and weak. So why shouldn't Trump exploit that fragility to land a death blow against a murderous adversary?"

"Almost no other foreign-policy question has been studied harder over the past 20 years or so than the likely effect of U.S. military strikes on Iran. The many years spent pondering and preparing for a potential attack on Iran are the reason that the first days of the war were, for the most part, a bravura display of American power. Yet all of that study also pointed out the risks: spiking oil prices, the spread of violence throughout the Middle East, civilian casualties."

"When past presidents balked at the possibility of war with Iran, they weren't just dodging a hard choice; they were deterred by all of the obvious reasons a conflict could perilously spiral. Nobody should be shocked that the expected is now coming to pass."

President Trump initiated military strikes against Iran based on either delusional self-confidence or calculated assessment that Iran's weakness after previous Israeli-American strikes made it vulnerable. However, two decades of rigorous foreign-policy analysis had thoroughly documented the severe risks of attacking Iran, including oil price spikes, regional violence escalation, and civilian casualties. Past presidents avoided such conflict not from indecision but from understanding how easily the situation could spiral dangerously. Geographic factors, particularly Iran's control of the Strait of Hormuz, amplify these risks significantly. The predicted negative consequences are now occurring as expected.

Read at The Atlantic