Trending
On the eve of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, Vyacheslav von Plehve bullishly promoted a conflict. As Russia's Minister of the Interior, he promoted the idea that "a small victorious war" over Japan may be just the thing to boost the popularity of his sovereign, Nicholas II. In a style which Americans are increasingly familiar with, Plehve declared, "Russia has been made by Bayonets, not diplomacy."
Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth tend to imitate this kind of bluster. With the war in Iran incomplete, the administration seems to strut without measuring or knowing where they are headed. It has all the telltale signs of Minneapolis, a barrage of careless rhetoric followed by uncertain actions. Hegseth is particularly theatrical, a la Kristi Noem, except he shows the tattoo of the Jerusalem (Crusader) Cross on his chest rather than a hat and eccentric apparel.
Clearly, they are blowing uncertain trumpets and declaring victory daily. In their enthusiasm for reviving old-style imperialism, they completely forget that the world is interconnected in ways undreamed of in 1900. Iran was able to shake up American aspirations by closing the Straits of Hormuz, something that the administration claimed could not be done. Insurance companies reacted by warning maritime traffic in the Straits that they would be uninsured if attacked.
Moreover, warfare is very different in the 21st century. As Vladimir Putin found out to his regret in Ukraine, a cheap drone could disable an expensive armored vehicle. Iran uses drones that cost 30,000 dollars apiece, versus the highly expensive Tomahawk missiles and Israeli bombs. For the time being, Iran is holding its own, even though it is hard hit.
In this respect, the operation launched without warning by the US and Israel resembles the Suez Crisis of October and November 1956. Then, Great Britain, Israel, and France launched an attack on Egypt to recapture the Suez Canal. The United States, led by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, condemned the action and ended the invasion of Egypt.
As with Iran, the military action was one-sided, with the Egyptians suffering lop-sided defeats in Sinai and Port Said, to name just two. Eisenhower saw the action as a retrograde attempt to force the hand of the United States. He was thinking ahead, realizing that Arab regimes might be fragile and subject to overthrow if the US openly aligned with Israel and other former imperial powers. After the crisis, the Iraqi monarchy fell in 1958, while Abdel Nasser remained in power.
Who will play Eisenhower to end this crisis? Maybe Vladimir Putin, who could hand Trump a laurel for negotiating the peace in Ukraine and Iran. It is curious that China and Russia were absent and thus did not attempt to veto a UN resolution condemning Iran's attack on the Arab Gulf states. Trump is facing a diplomatic dilemma, unable to influence Iran without the help of the other nuclear world powers.