In Iran, is Trump snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

There is no doubt that Donald Trump brilliantly and with calm courage significantly degraded Iran’s nuclear capabilities, for which a Nobel Peace Prize is deserved.  But in the triumphant glow of the aftermath, he may be on his way to undoing all his achievements.  If so, shouldn’t we discuss and debate this subject before it is too late?

President Trump’s well-coordinated stealth bombing of three Iranian enrichment sites, without so much as a scratch on American planes, was a masterpiece.

This strike was in support of our ally Israel, welcome after four years of “frenemy” posturing by the Biden Administration, which restrained any promising Israeli initiative while enriching Iran by encouraging, not sanctioning, oil sales.

While we should list all the advantages gained to both world peace and the American economy, shouldn’t we also explore whether America is now sowing the seeds of destruction of those same advances?

Most prominently, President Trump ensured that Iran would not soon gain a nuclear weapon, which in turn could and would have been used to terrorize, even destroy, Israel while threatening the remainder of the globe.  He backed Israel, unlike Biden, as Israel aggressively degraded Iranian defenses, assisting as needed. These actions significantly harmed the Iranian military buildup, which now will require resources that otherwise would have been devoted to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, along with Iran’s own terrorist forces. So, the American strikes will bear future dividends. But will we end those prematurely?

For pushing for an unusually quick ceasefire in the face of virtually no ongoing threat, Trump has prevented Israel from easily finishing off Iran, and with it, the present regime, which has killed over 1,000 Americans in the past decades.  In restraining Israel, Trump may be missing a chance to degrade Iranian nuclear enrichment further, an especially urgent task since the extent of degradation is far from certain, and the presence of other sites still hidden a possibility.

We now know that at least nine trucks with an estimated sixty pounds of highly enriched uranium, on the brink of being weapons-grade, pulled out of the various facilities before we bombed them.  Can this material still be used in a bomb carried by a missile that could be built anywhere, either by Iran or another hostile power?  Don’t we need assurances that we, the UN or the IAEA have possession or control of all of that fissile material?  Otherwise, one might ask, wasn’t our bombing all for naught?  If America does not want to be on the hunt for the missing material, why should we restrain Israel, a possible victim of it?

But here is the kicker.  Trump is now not only allowing, but encouraging, Iran to freely sell oil, and to boot, to China.  By so doing, aren’t we enriching Iran and helping the oil-hungry Chinese? Aren’t we therefore encouraging more terrorism?

Clearly, Trump hopes that oil prices will thereby come down, repeating Biden’s Iran-enriching blunder of the past.  But even with today’s oil prices, many drillers and frackers are on the sidelines because their product is not profitable at current price levels.

It is good for national security to be the world’s dominant supplier of oil, which gives our country economic as well as military power.  If we permanently lose capacity because we are allowing Iran to compete with us, and cannot control whether China easily gets a steady oil supply, we will become a weaker country, won’t we? So, we ask, are we making America weak again?

In short, lost Iranian supply can be offset by American capacity increases.  Simply urging our domestic suppliers, “Drill, baby, drill!”, without also removing Iran as a competitor, is not enough to solve this conundrum.

Will a prosperous Iran change regimes?  It isn’t very likely, if this regime is allowed to get off the mat of near economic collapse.  Will the wealth we are allowing increase terrorism and Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb, once again?  Likely.  Are we strengthening the axis of China, Russia, and Iran just as the economies of all three are on the ropes?  It seems so.  Is this being done for modest, ephemeral political gain to the detriment of long-term financial and military security?  That seems obvious.

Before it is too late, we should inquire whether we should allow Israel to complete its mission in Iran, including the destruction of all missile launching sites, while continuing to monitor any rearmament and/or support for terrorism.

Then there is the issue of timing.  Shouldn’t we debate whether we allow Iran to revive before it  is either counted out or surrenders?  Iran, after all, still shows no willingness to negotiate a meaningful compromise.  Shouldn’t Trump have resisted a ceasefire until Iran was willing to show meaningful moderation?

Shouldn’t we discuss that a ceasefire benefits only Iran, as Iran gives up nothing and gains the ability to fight another day?  Will the wounded animal play nice after it heals?

And while this discussion is occurring, should we not sanction Iran so that its sales are down to at least pre-Biden levels?  Economic hampers will effectively prevent further widespread support for terrorism, won’t it?

And, finally, are we indirectly financing sleeper cells within our own borders, endangering us all with the threat of dirty bombs and destroyed infrastructure?

On the bright side, President Trump is nothing if not nimble in adjusting a policy when it appears at the outset that his original version needs amendment. Isn’t this a time to pull out of the cease-fire, or release Israel from its commitment, based on new findings, such as previously concealed enrichment sites? Call it pretext or not, shouldn’t we look for a judicious out?

These are questions only, posed from a commonsense perspective.  But shouldn’t we discuss them before it is almost too late (again)?  After all, we may not be so lucky next time.