Welcome to Home & Away. There is a lot (one might say too much) going on for what are meant to be the sleepy days of summer. Even an abbreviated list would include Canadian wildfires and intense storms that remind us that as much as we might want to ignore climate change, it will not ignore us; new tariffs on Canada that will be inflationary and cause further damage to an already damaged relationship with what was a close ally; testosterone testing at the Pentagon when what is really in short supply in the five-sided building is strategy; leadership turbulence in Ukraine at a time the war was shifting in its favor; a generous civilian nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia that if it goes ahead will reinforce the already growing and very dangerous possibility that nuclear weapons will play a greater role in the region’s future; a president who keeps casting doubt on the integrity of American elections, which makes one wonder and worry what he has in store for the midterms, now just 100 days away; and a mayor here in New York City who seems more comfortable playing to his base and attacking Israel and the wealthy rather than taking on the bloated, costly behemoth that is the city’s Department of Education or dealing with homelessness.
Why More is Less
I will circle back to several of these topics in the coming weeks, but today I will focus on just one, which happens to be the same one I have focused on for the past four-plus months, namely the war with Iran. The war has continued and, in some ways, widened: the latest includes attacks by one of Iran’s proxies (in this case, the Houthis) on Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, U.S. attacks on a range of Iranian targets, and Iranian attacks on U.S. bases in the region (resulting in the deaths of several U.S. servicemembers) as well as the water and energy infrastructure of several Gulf states.
The war is taking on a dynamic that reflects politics more than strategy. What is clear is that the conflict is expanding again in both geography and intensity. Less clear is how either protagonist will benefit. The word that comes to mind is the title of this week’s newsletter: Overreach.
Overreach describes a policy that seeks to do too much, one that is unrealistic either because of the situation at hand or because its accomplishment demands more resources than are available. It is a recurring theme of U.S. foreign policy, as it characterizes the decision to go north of the thirty-eighth parallel during the Korean War in an attempt to unify the Korean Peninsula by force, as well as the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran. The United States is overreaching in Iran as there is no evidence that more attacks will precipitate Iranian capitulation, regime change, or an open Strait of Hormuz. Nor will they solve the problem posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. More attacks (in addition to their direct costs, from the roiling of financial and energy markets to the human to the depletion of U.S. stockpiles) risk continued retaliation against the region’s energy and water infrastructure and against U.S. bases and personnel. The political and economic costs of the war (in no small part because of rising energy prices) are mounting fast.
I suggested a little over a week ago what U.S. policy should look like: accelerated efforts to reduce the salience of the Strait of Hormuz, improved defense of our Gulf partners to lessen the costs of Iranian retaliation, increased economic pressure on Iran, a return to negotiations to cap Iran’s nuclear activities, and a serious effort to reach an acceptable interim arrangement with Iran on the opening of the Strait. Such an arrangement could allow for tolls (consistent with the Trump administration’s MOU), as the revenues would be offset by continued sanctions. We should, for now, maintain our blockade on Iranian use of the Strait as leverage for negotiations.
Interestingly, Iran is also guilty of overreach. It has gained a good deal from this war, and stands to gain even more from the MOU signed with the United States, but it is paying a high price for the war’s continuation. The Achilles heel of the regime is its economy. Tehran cannot afford to see its energy and water infrastructure destroyed if it wants to recover. Destroying the infrastructure of others will not help Iran. The new leadership has a stake in consolidating its position and shifting its focus to economic recovery if it doesn’t want internal protest to resume. Unbridled revenge is not a strategy.
What is needed is an Iranian leader to make the case for a ceasefire and for translating what it has fought for into something good for the country’s long-term interests. There is a powerful precedent. Thirty-eight years ago this month, in July 1988, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini famously reversed his stance and accepted UN Security Council Resolution 598 to bring the war with Iraq to an end. It wasn’t easy – he said doing so was “more deadly than drinking from a poisoned chalice” – but he did it all the same to preserve the 1979 Revolution. The problem is that there may be no such leader in Iran today; not surprisingly, it turns out that targeted assassinations of leadership can be incompatible with war termination.
In short, both the United States and Iran would be well-served by a ceasefire that included a mutually acceptable reopening of the Strait and a return to negotiations on nuclear matters which, if successful, would lead to the easing of U.S. sanctions. President Trump relishes the role of peacemaker. He should take the initiative, maybe even citing the Khomeini precedent. And he should act soon, as the dynamic of escalation is about to overcome its illogic.
The Sporting Life
Here, too, there is lots to discuss. The World Cup and Spain’s victory are now history, and while there were a good many wonderful, memorable moments, the outsized role of officiating left a bad taste, as did the loutish behavior of the Argentine side in the final. I also think England’s loss reinforced the message that sitting on a lead is rarely, if ever, a good strategy. Better to keep playing in the manner that got you the lead than to go on the defensive. For the record, this applies not just to sports but to much of life.
The Open (formerly known as the British Open) is also history, won by New Zealander Ryan Fox by one stroke over Cameron Young, the legend of Sleepy Hollow. What I love about Mr. Fox’s game is its pace. He averages about eight seconds from the time he steps up to the ball to his swing. There is no excuse for Patrick Cantlay averaging close to a minute each and every time, much less for any mid-handicapper to do so. The 40 second rule should be halved. Doing so would cut maybe half an hour off how long it takes to play a round and most likely lower scores, as too much time to think before swinging or putting causes many golfers to tense up.
Last but not least, there is the extraordinary accomplishment of Josh Kerr. Some seventy years after an Englishman (Roger Bannister) first ran a mile in under four minutes, Kerr (from Scotland) completed a mile in 3:42.66, or 3 minutes and 42 and two-thirds seconds. That is close to 55 seconds for every quarter mile. Anyone not impressed by this feat should try to run just one lap around a standard track in under a minute. All of which means the UK now again has the record holder in the mile as well as a new prime minister. Not the World Cup, but not bad.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Wednesday, July 22: Morning Joe on U.S.-Iran Strikes.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.