CNN:

Nick Paton Walsh

It is bubble-gum foreign policy: one where the quick hit of flavor is the goal, rather than chewing a sticky mess for hours. US President Donald Trump’s approach to global adventurism appears to adore a quick result and abhor a protracted crisis.

Little is predictable with this White House, and that is perhaps the point. But the few lessons learned from January’s whirlwind, and indeed Trump’s previous entanglements with Iran, suggest his military options ahead in the Gulf are limited, and far from great.

The buildup of naval assets off and around the coast of Iran is blunt and plodding. Trump has telegraphed potential military action for about 19 days, since he posted “HELP IS ON ITS WAY” and canceled meetings with Iranian officials because of their brutal slaughter of protesters. Back then, he lacked convincing firepower in the region to mount a sizeable assault. That calculus is slowly changing. His June assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities had two carrier groups in the region, more there as a counter-weight to any Iranian reprisals than to be directly involved in the attack. At present, the United States has one carrier group, and multiple other assets, many easily tracked by open-source monitoring.

The buildup has robbed the Pentagon of the element of surprise, but that may not make a huge difference. The Iranian regime has been on high alert, surely, for the seven months since Israel’s wide-ranging and crippling 12-day assault. And while it has surely managed some sort of recovery, its stocks of missiles, and command structure, are without doubt depleted. Trump faces a weakened adversary, but that does not improve his choices. It may in fact complicate them.

Post-Khamenei path would be far from clear

Firstly, one lesson of January is that nothing at all might happen. Much analysis of Trump’s outspoken and illegal claims to Greenland suggested he had boxed himself into a corner where he had to act. But his “iron-willed” position folded faster than NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte could whisper the fateful word: “Daddy.”

Often with the 47th president, the show is the goal. He Truths the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in 74 words; he backs down on Greenland with a similar tap of his thumb. And for the fourth time in a month, the world is hanging on every Truth to see if this time, with Iran, it is a FAFO or a TACO.

If Trump feels beholden to military action, the path is rocky. Singular, precise strikes fit the pattern of previous presidential behavior. When Trump takes the military action that his America-first MAGA base is so often averse to, it is usually a mix of impressive and bold execution, with an apparently sober and accurate grasp of the ensuing risks.

Maduro’s capture, the assassination of Quds force chief Qassem Soleimani and the strikes on Iran’s nuclear program all correctly assessed their adversary’s relative inability to defend themselves or strike back. These three operations flexed US military superiority over a brief, but highly potent window: a singular news cycle of undeniable action, seemingly without regard for the aftermath, because really that was not the US’ problem. Trump may have claimed they would “run” Venezuela after Maduro, but evidently had no real plan to do so, bar coercion over the same continued government in Caracas. His top adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, openly admits they have no idea what could follow the demise of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran.

Go to link