Trump is trying to seize strategic initiative through the backdoor; it’s never going to work

I’ve probably written more on this subject than on any other topic. Donald Trump has been keeping me busy. By his own ‘standards’ of harebrained lunacy, however, this time Trump has surpassed even himself. A world coming to grips with multiple geopolitical hotspots, conflict zones and instability, doesn’t need the US president to act as the arsonist-in-chief. But here we are.

The announcement of 20 per cent Hormuz toll, that Trump withdrew within less than 24 hours, shows the level of his frustration and utter failure to achieve any of the stated political objectives. Trump has not only squandered a chance to let diplomacy solve the trickiest bits of the conflict with Iran, but he has also wasted own leverage and inadvertently validated Iran’s bid to impose transit fees on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Moreover, Trump’s strategic ineptitude has moved the focus firmly away from his own pre-war stated goals and exclusively towards the choking of the waterway. It suits Iran’s objectives.

More from Opinion

I’ve been reading arguments in western media that Iran, that fired on tankers trying to surreptitiously cross the Hormuz strait using the Omani route, is behaving like a thug. I beg to differ.

The latest round of hostilities that is at risk of descending into a full-blown war owes less to Iranian ‘impertinence’ than an audacious bid by the United States to improve its negotiating position by taking advantage of the pause in fighting. Trump ceded strategic space to Iran despite a devastating military campaign. He failed to enforce a decisive political outcome on a weaker adversary. Now he cannot gain leverage on the sly.

The collapse of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is not the result of a sudden ‘misunderstanding’ or an accidental escalation. It is the inevitable result of one side practicing deception. It has been quite clear from the start that Trump never had the slightest intention of adhering to the terms of the agreement. For the US president, especially, the ceasefire was never more than a tactical smokescreen to undermine Iran’s authority over the Strait of Hormuz.

The problem stems from the very agreement that Trump had to sign to avert a global economic recession and secure an off-ramp in a war that, at least for the US, was going nowhere. However, because Washington had failed to achieve its objectives and had underestimated Iran’s commitment to sustain a battle of attrition, the terms that were written into the agreement, such as Clause 5, were not particularly advantageous for the US.

Clause 5 of the MoU, in fact, was seen as a diplomatic victory for Tehran since it recognized Iran’s administrative and sovereign authority over the strategic waterway. Clause 5 granted Iran a definitive 60-day window to oversee the safe passage of commercial vessels from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman.

The text reads: “Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa.” Clause 5 also adds that “Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.”

As Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said during his visit to Baghdad on June 28, “the Strait of Hormuz remains under the total oversight and management of Iran through the 30 coming days, and after all obstacles are removed, the total capacity of the waterway will be restored. This is what we are working on.”

Pay attention to Araghchi’s words here: “There is no other party or state in this respect. This is totally clear under the memorandum of understanding, and any intervention or any unilateral action will result in exacerbating the situation and also delay the reopening of the strait.”

Whether or not the US ‘recognised’ Iran’s authority, the point is Tehran was convinced of it.

Clause 5, crucially, does not mention the name of the United States, and leaves no space for the Trump administration to manoeuvre. For a period of 60 days, Iran was given the leeway to manage and secure the flow of traffic – a concession that Trump agreed to on paper in exchange for cessation of hostilities and normalisation of crude prices.

The ink on the MoU was barely dry before Washington began a campaign to rewrite the rules. I’m not sold on the argument that Trump was trying to take advantage of the Iranian regime’s preoccupation with Ayatollah Khamenei’s funeral. It is undeniable, however, that Trump’s effort to force traffic through the Hormuz strait from the Omani side by asking the ships to switch off their transponders was a bad faith move to retroactively alter the terms of the agreement.

Iran, understandably, wouldn’t have let slip their main point of leverage and allow Washington to impede their control over the strait. It responded by targeting the vessels.

The core problem at the heart of this renewed conflict, therefore, lies in America’s unilateral, bad faith attempt to gain strategic leverage by undermining Iran’s control over the critical waterway. For the Iranian regime, control over this chokepoint is an existential imperative. Ceding administrative writ, particularly in a manner that violated the terms of a freshly signed document, would have amounted to an erosion of the very leverage that Iran has painstakingly gained during the conflict.

Washington cannot seize this initiative without securing a definitive military victory that can only be achieved if Trump orders American boots on Iranian soil, a risk that even he is unwilling to take. Little wonder that his bid to impose a new reality on the ground ended has ended in another failure.

As Iran fired on two tankers from the UAE transiting Hormuz in violation of the agreement, Trump declared that the MoU is dead. In a rapid escalation, he revoked the sanctions waiver that allowed Iran to sell its oil, reinstated the naval blockade, cancelled the sanctions relief including a reconstruction plan for the Iranian economy, and imposed new sanctions. There have since been relentless tit-for-tat attacks with Trump resuming the bombing campaign and vowing to blast Iran’s power plants and bridges if Tehran does not “come to the table” and negotiate.

In an interview to Fox News, Trump said Iran could face attacks on key infrastructure, including power plants and bridges next week, and the attacks will “continue until I say it’s enough.”

Trump may never get it, but these threats will have little effect on Tehran that survived US and Israel’s combine military campaign and stuck to its doctrinal approach.

Moreover, for the Iranian leadership, Trump’s threats and actions serve as a validation for their belief that the US cannot be trusted to uphold its side of the bargain in negotiations. That leaves Iran with little incentive to comply and every reason to fight till the bitter end.

The collapse of the MoU and subsequent US missile strikes and threats are less a display of American strength than a reflection of Trump’s frustration at lack of good options to force open the Strait of Hormuz. Until Trump realises that strategic initiative cannot be seized through the backdoor, the Persian Gulf will remain a treacherous flashpoint.

(The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)