The Cowboy in the White House

Il Riformista: Is Donald Trump willing to share with allies in the chain of command for operations and objectives as a price for them to join the war on the Islamic Republic of Iran?

The cowboy in the White House, as imagined by AI.

Daniel Pipes: Trump sees his unpredictability as a tactical asset and to some extent it is (though he takes it to an extreme that ultimately harms American interests). I call this the "cowboy in the White House" phenomenon. Accordingly, no one can predict Trump, perhaps not even he himself. Turning to your question: Nothing in his mentality or his record suggests he sees allies, with the slight exception of Israel, as worthy of the power and privilege to influence his decisions.

IR: Might the damage suffered by neighbors of Iran from its attacks on them, from Pakistan to Türkiye and from Azerbaijan to Oman, push them to intervene in the conflict?

DP: So far as I know, the United Arab Emirates' leaders are, so far, the only ones to contemplate military action against Iran, which makes sense given that the UAE has by far suffered the most attacks from Iran, about twice as many than Israel. Should the Islamic Republic of Iran survive this war, as currently appears likely, this aggression against neutral neighbors will long haunt it, making it far more isolated than in the past. The economic and security problems that follow might, ironically, eventually precipitate the Islamic Republic's collapse.

IR: How costly to U.S. prestige and influence is its inability to defend its allies from the consequences of those Iranian attacks?

DP: Very costly. That the U.S. government initiated a war without thinking through its consequences will do lasting damage through the remainder of Donald Trump's presidency. However, I expect that Trump's failures will prove a compelling reason for his successor not to emulate him but to make great, and presumably successful, efforts to undo the foreign policy problems Trump created.

IR: Please define Tehran's war goal.

DP: The Islamic Republic needs only to survive the U.S.-Israeli onslaught plausibly to achieve victory.

IR: What is its strategy to attain that goal?

DP: Lacking sufficient military power to defend itself on the literal battlefield, Tehran has expanded the war in two ways, one dumb and one smart: attacking neighbors and denying merchant marine passage through the Straits of Hormuz. The former gratuitously alienated governments that Tehran needs. The latter gives it a global power that, seemingly, no one had prepared for. (Even the pipelines transporting Persian Gulf energy to the Red Sea stand vulnerable to Houthi attacks.)

IR: Can Israel become the dominant Middle Eastern economic and military power?

DP: No. Although small in population (10 million) and suffering from many domestic problems, Israel has assets that should make it the envy of most other countries: a very high birth rate, a remarkable high-tech sector, and a strong will to live and prosper. Israel endured an invasion by six enemy armies on the day of its birth in 1948 and never enjoyed a moment of peace in the subsequent 78 years. Fed up with this predicament, Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership seeks regime change in its most determined foe, Iran. I doubt this will succeed. Even if it does, Türkiye under Islamist rule will continue to challenge Israeli regional dominance.