In the aftermath of the American offensive against Iran’s nuclear facilities, the echoes of the protracted conflict the US found itself entangled in with Iraq since 2003 are resonating once more. As someone who extensively covered the region during the onset of the Iraq War and the prolonged struggle that followed, the similarities between these two scenarios are palpably unsettling. The world is currently suspended in anticipation of Iran’s reaction to the US targeting of three critical nuclear sites, and the potential initiation of a broader conflict. Mindful of this precarious situation, one cannot disregard the oddly foreboding words offered by Donald Rumsfeld, the former Defense Secretary, just a year before the Iraq War commenced.
Rumsfeld, in response to a question regarding proof of Iraq’s purported intent to provide terrorist organizations with weapons of mass destruction – a claim ardently propagated by the Bush administration – put forward a cryptic analogy. He posited that ‘There are known knowns; these are things we understand. Then there are known unknowns; uncertainties that we’re aware we don’t comprehend. But, there are also unknown unknowns; particulars that we’re oblivious of our lack of understanding.’ Indeed, the enigma we find ourselves facing today with respect to Iran carries even more known knowns than those encountered during George W. Bush’s tenure.
However, becoming privy to more known facts does not necessarily insulate us from running into known unknowns. These consist of hidden motives and attitudes of three unpredictable leaders: Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and President Donald Trump. Teasing out their intentions, particularly whether they desire and comprehend how to put an end to the Israel-Iran war, and fulfilling their differentiating appetites is a complex puzzle in itself. More so, deciphering the enigmatic unknown unknowns, which are likely to stem from the long-term strategic thinking, or lack of it, of these three self-assured men.
In comparison to the information relayed to Bush, President Trump had more conspicuous data at his disposal, thanks to very clear ground realities. The intelligence fed to Bush was biased and adulterated, having been obtained from Iraqi exiles harboring ambitions to embroil the U.S. in a war with Saddam Hussein. Conversely, in Iran’s case, there were stark facts available to the world before the war could even kick-off. Yet, these were conveniently brushed under the rug by the governing entities.
The specifics of Iran’s uranium enrichment to near-weapons grade have been corroborated by the International Atomic Energy Agency, opening up known unknowns such as whether and when Tehran would opt for a ‘breakout’ to weaponize the enriched uranium, and the timeline for that. It’s possible that the Israeli leadership may have managed to convince Trump of the urgency of the threat beyond its reality. Despite similarities with Iraq, there can be no denying that a regime that openly seeks Israel’s termination has the capability of creating nuclear weapons. Moreover, it’s undeniable that the Ayatollah consistently heightens tensions in the Middle East through its munition-supported proxies based in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, and the previous Syrian regime.
Other known facts involve Israel’s effective neutralization of Hamas and Hezbollah, its obliteration of Syria’s defenses, and the incapacitation of Iran’s aerial defense system. These developments meant that Israel, and by extension the US, had virtually unchecked bombing capabilities. However, knowing these facts brings us to the doorstep of the known unknowns, dependent on the long-term strategic perceptions of the three leaders who have so far displayed an alarming short-sightedness.
Beginning with Khamenei, his decision to back Hamas after its attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, turned out to be a strategic misstep. The Iranian leader’s reaction to the US attack is yet to be seen, but it’s highly improbable that he will acquiesce to Trump’s demand that Tehran relinquishes the right to enrich uranium for civilian uses. Therefore, the primary known unknown involves determining Khamenei’s next move.
Khamenei, not one to be underestimated, is well aware of the repercussions if Iranian missiles target US soldiers based in the region, including the possible counter retaliation by the US. Alternatively, a more plausible tactic would be for him to hurt Trump where it would be most impactful – the US and global economy. The Iranian parliament has begun lobbying for the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint through which a considerable portion of the world’s oil transits, which would send global oil prices surging.
The subsequent known unknown lies in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s next move. His public stance supports a regime change in Tehran. If Netanyahu succumbs to his ambitious aspirations to etch his role in Israeli history by continuing to bombard Iran, what would be the repercussions? While Khamenei’s demise would likely be welcomed by most Iranians, it would not guarantee the installation of a regime friendly to either the US or Israel. On the contrary, it could plunge the region into a more protracted conflict, potentially drawing the US deeper into the conflict.
The third critical known unknown is deciphering Trump’s true intentions. His aspiration behind the bombings was to frighten Tehran into capitulating to his commands within a single show of force. However, his track record reveals a lack of patience and vision needed to manage a long-term strategic plan. If this conflict extends, will he be able to refrain from sinking further into this quagmire?
Although the US attack inflicted considerable damage on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, some sections may have remained intact and reassembly might be possible. In response to the US hostility, Iran could expedite its course toward the construction of operational nuclear weapons. Additionally, Khamenei is unlikely to respond favorably to Trump’s calls for unconditional surrender during negotiations. Faced with these eventualities, Trump is left with two equally unfavorable choices: initiating a secondary round of attacks on Iran or relaxing his conditions for zero uranium enrichment within Iran.
Neither of these options would appeal to his domestic supporters. The unpredictability of the situation intensifies with the introduction of the most threatening dynamic – the unknown unknowns. These pivot on the intentions of three men, each driven by different factors – the Ayatollah’s divine mission, Trump’s ego, and Netanyahu’s quest for power. None of these leaders has displayed substantial strategic foresight necessary to diffuse extended conflicts.
Any one of these men could inadvertently set in motion an unknown unknown that could escalate the ongoing Israel-US-Iran conflict, further destabilizing the region. Regardless of what ensues, one thing is certain, President Trump now shares the burden of the Israel-Iran conflict.