I was just listening to an ex-US ambassador talking about the Iran war. He commented that Trump finds himself in the unpalatable position of needing to choose between
(1) Halting the offensive without having 'got the job done'
(2) Sending in the troops
If he goes for (2) and that does not alter the regime's policy regarding open navigation of the Gulf, what is achieved?
If he goes for option (1) there is no guarantee that the regime will alter its policy to allow free navigation of the Gulf.
As the ex-US ambassador said, Trump should never have attacked Iran. I agree. I wonder if the world would be in a similar economic mess if Israel alone had attacked Iran.
(1) Halting the offensive without having 'got the job done'
(2) Sending in the troops
If he goes for (2) and that does not alter the regime's policy regarding open navigation of the Gulf, what is achieved?
If he goes for option (1) there is no guarantee that the regime will alter its policy to allow free navigation of the Gulf.
As the ex-US ambassador said, Trump should never have attacked Iran. I agree. I wonder if the world would be in a similar economic mess if Israel alone had attacked Iran.
Last edited: