Israel's war on Iran: What's the endgame?
A week after Israel's initial strikes on nuclear and military targets across Iran, many are asking: What comes next? As deadly attacks and counterattacks between the two countries continue with no end yet in sight, Andrew Chang explores what Israel's endgame might be in its war with Iran and why its ambitions could go well beyond preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Images provided by Getty Images, The Canadian Press and Reuters.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
6 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Trump's strategy on Iran: Is it TACO or FOMO?
Walking a dog is against the law in Tehran. The rule has not been widely enforced, but in recent weeks officials in Iran signalled that the ban would be given bite, and extended to other parts of the country. The regime frowns on pet dogs as unclean, and avatars of westernization. Also forbidden: riding in a car with a dog. The prosecutor in Mashhad recently said that 'dog walking is a clear crime' and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the theocrat atop the theocratic state, said in 2017 that having dogs as pets is 'reprehensible' and 'forbidden.' None of the above speaks to how far along Iran is in building a nuclear weapon, or whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right to have launched an attack, or whether U.S. President Donald Trump should join in. Instead, I share this little tidbit as a small insight into the big problem of ending this war, and ending it well. There are three players in this conflict, each with his own obsessions and his own degree of disconnection from reality. It starts with Iran, but does not end there. Collapse of Iranian regime could have unintended consequences for U.S. and Israel Trump says Iran's Supreme Leader is 'an easy target,' demands country's unconditional surrender Israel's military and intelligence agencies have a history of tactical genius, and this week's feats take that to new heights. But even the smartest bomb is just a tool, not a strategy. And Israel's tactical feats have been repeatedly squandered by a government with blinkered strategic vision. After more than 20 months of fighting in Gaza, Mr. Netanyahu has no plan to end the war, and no plan for the day after. It's a complete strategic void. Has he got a better idea for how to end this war with Iran? Then there's the U.S. President. With uncharacteristic prudence, he initially distanced himself from the Israeli strikes on Iran. That lasted a day. Having been mocked on tariffs as a TACO – Trump Always Chickens Out – he suddenly appeared to be seized by FOMO – the fear of missing out on Israel's success. On Tuesday, he wrote on social media that 'we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' It was unclear if 'we' was foreshadowing or a Freudian slip. Surrounded by a cabinet of yes-men and a confederacy of dunces, it's a given that Mr. Trump is not getting the best advice. That means America is the second party to this conflict whose strategic vision may not be 20/20. And then there's the third player: Mr. Khamenei. Having spent decades fighting the decadence of the flesh – human and canine – while crushing any signs of popular opposition, his government is half Handmaid's Tale, half Sopranos. But he is now in hiding, his closest military advisers are now obituaries, and instead of leading Friday prayers with rote recitations of Death to America, Death to Israel, yada yada yada – the last speech posted on his website before the Israeli attack was titled 'Based on a definite divine decree, the Zionist regime is collapsing' – he's filming videos in an undisclosed location. He's 86 years old, in poor health, and has long had half his mind in the afterlife. Mr. Khamenei is also not likely to be the most level-headed decision maker. The best-case scenario is that Mr. Trump is threatening FOMO with the aim of getting to TACO; that Mr. Khamenei responds by agreeing to give up on nuclear weapons in return for an end to the war; and that Mr. Trump compels Mr. Netanyahu to embrace diplomatic success. In other words, the best hope is that Mr. Trump is bluffing, but that Mr. Khamenei isn't certain of that – and in any case his regime's survival is in peril from Israeli strikes alone – so he agrees to make the big concession. This whole process, however, involves multiple steps, and multiple opportunities for things to go wrong. And what happens if Mr. Khamenei calls Mr. Trump's bluff? On Thursday afternoon, the White House released a statement from the President: 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' That's just about the most sensible thing Mr. Trump could have said. Given his track record, he may yet contradict or undermine it. He may become impatient and lose focus. But if he can stick to it, it offers both a path forward and the time to walk it. A win-win, ending the war and Iran's nuclear ambitions, without U.S. military intervention, is, for the moment at least, not impossible.
CBC
7 hours ago
- CBC
Israel's war on Iran: What's the endgame?
A week after Israel's initial strikes on nuclear and military targets across Iran, many are asking: What comes next? As deadly attacks and counterattacks between the two countries continue with no end yet in sight, Andrew Chang explores what Israel's endgame might be in its war with Iran and why its ambitions could go well beyond preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Images provided by Getty Images, The Canadian Press and Reuters.
CBC
8 hours ago
- CBC
Iran decision shouldn't be Trump's alone, MAGA voices and Democrats say
Social Sharing Much has been made this week of a rift among Donald Trump's loyalists regarding the degree to which the U.S. should support Israel's offensive strikes against Iran — although there has been little pushback among Republicans in Congress. Some longtime defenders of his America First mantra are calling him out for weighing a greater U.S. role in the conflict between Israel and Iran after a week of deadly strikes and counter-strikes. Trump emphasized Thursday morning that one notable report was erroneous. "The Wall Street Journal has No Idea what my thoughts are concerning Iran!," Trump posted on Truth Social. The report said Trump had signed off on unspecified attack plans, but was holding out hope Iran could be compelled to abandon its nuclear program after a week of Israeli strikes. The U.S. under Trump, who grew frustrated after two months of talks with Iran did not lead to progress on a nuclear deal, has been shifting military assets in recent days in the Middle East. How deep will the U.S. be pulled into the Israel-Iran war? | About That 23 hours ago Duration 13:28 It is understood that Israel needs considerable U.S. assistance in any bid to decimate Iran's nuclear program, particularly with respect to the Fordow nuclear fuel enrichment plant, built deep underground in the mountains. The U.S. Air Force's B-2 Spirit stealth bomber is the only aircraft that can carry the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, known as the bunker buster. "I'm not looking to fight," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday. "But if it's a choice between fighting and having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do." 'The American people have to be on board' Among the factors that propelled Trump, the outsider, to the 2016 presidency was his pledge to end American military adventurism after lengthy and costly engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks. "We are ending the era of endless wars," Trump said in one 2020 speech to troops. Steve Bannon, Trump's final 2016 campaign chief executive and a first-term White House adviser, is currently urging the president to stay true to those instincts. "This is one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, OK, with 92 million people," he told reporters this week at an event in Washington, D.C. "You have to think this through at this level, and the American people have to be on board. You can't just dump this on them." Bannon's knowledge of Iran's population was not matched by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who had a fractious interview this week with Tucker Carlson, who strongly criticized the senator for seeking regime change in Iran. "You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?" Carlson asked. "Why is it relevant if it's 90 million or 80 million or 100 million. Why is that relevant?" Cruz countered. A day earlier, Carlson told Bannon on the latter's podcast that he was "really afraid that my country's gonna be further weakened by this. I think we're gonna see the end of the American empire." Charlie Kirk, CEO of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA and a supporter through three Trump presidential campaigns, echoed the stance of Bannon and Carlson. Kirk said in a Thursday social media post that "there is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change." 'Help Israel finish the job' On Capitol Hill, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is arguably the most vociferous hawk, urging Trump to "go all-in to help Israel finish the job." "It's time to close the chapter on the ayatollah and his henchmen," Graham said in a Fox News interview this week. "Let's close it soon and start a new chapter in the Mideast: one of tolerance, hope and peace." Cruz has said he envisions no scenario in which "American boots" would be on the ground in Iran. In MAGA world, that view seems polyannish. On the OAN cable news show hosted by Matt Gaetz, a former CIA analyst and erstwhile Trump cabinet pick said the U.S. might just end up with "a different version of hell" even if regime change ultimately occurred. Unsurprisingly, Democrats are raising alarm about any unilateral action by Trump. Led by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, they said in a statement on Wednesday that "Congress has not provided authorization for military action against Iran," and that the party would not "rubberstamp military intervention that puts the United States at risk." That sentiment is matched by few Republicans, save Kentuckians Rand Paul and Thomas Massie. In a podcast with Daily Signal released Thursday, the Sen. Paul said he feared the "unintended consequences" of greater U.S. military involvement, pointing to Afghanistan. "When we finally left [in 2021], it reverted back to the stone ages within six months," he said. Massie, meanwhile, is teaming with several House Democrats to sponsor a resolution that calls on Trump to "terminate" the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless Congress authorizes it. "This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our constitution," he said earlier this week. MAGA firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene, not known for her bipartisan spirit, has not partnered on the resolution, though she did post on X: "Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA." Iran again, but different Trump has grappled with weighty decisions involving Iran and military might before. In 2019, the U.S. did not act with force after Iran shot down a surveillance drone and when it launched aerial strikes on Saudi Arabian oil facilities. Trump also stood down after Iran fired ballistic missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq in January 2020. As is likely happening now, multiple voices within the administration, in Congress and in right-wing media were jockeying to influence Trump's January 2020 decision. The latter decision came just days after Trump gave the go-ahead for arguably the most consequential foreign policy decision of his first term, one a UN expert report later deemed "unlawful" — the drone strike that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, who had shaped Tehran's military stance in the Middle East and provided logistical support to militant group proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. The Solemaini strike on Jan. 3, 2020, had repercussions both immediate and to the present day. An Jan. 8, 2020, Iran mistakenly shot down Ukrainian Airlines Flight PS752, killing all crew and passengers, including 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents, per Global Affairs Canada. U.S. authorities since then, including just in November, have claimed to have snuffed out plots to kill Trump, as well as other Iran critics. The Netanyahu factor Of course, the 2019-2020 events weren't taking place against the backdrop of the Israel-Hamas war. Since Oct. 7, 2023, Israel's military has eliminated several top commanders of Hezbollah and Hamas. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may feel emboldened to end Iran's threat to his country for the foreseeable future, former Trump national security adviser John Bolton told CBC News last week not to overestimate the strength of their personal relationship in any Oval Office decisions. "I don't think the relationship with Trump and Netanyahu personally is as good as many people feel. And I do think Trump really wanted to see if there was a negotiated settlement [possible]," said Bolton. Another difference since 2020 is that even by Trump standards, there is a great deal of upheaval within his current administration. Several National Security Council officials have been bounced — some reportedly because they weren't loyal enough to Trump. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is currently also serving as national security adviser, after Mike Waltz was reassigned following the fiasco over the Signal chat on Yemen military strikes that a journalist was inadvertently invited to. Meanwhile, Trump this week completely disregarded the comments about the Iranian nuclear program made by his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Alex Ward, from the Wall Street Journal, summarized the state of play on Wednesday.
