OPINION:
When Iran shot down a U.S. drone aircraft last month, President Trump ordered and then canceled a retaliatory U.S. strike on Iranian military sites minutes before the attack was to occur.
Mr. Trump reportedly canceled the retaliation because it would probably have killed more than 100 Iranians. The president felt that it would thus be disproportionate to what Iran had done. He believed, correctly, that because Iran did not take any American lives in shooting down the drone, we shouldn’t take Iranian lives in response.
In response to the drone being downed, Mr. Trump imposed more sanctions on Iran, including personally on Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, as well as reportedly authorizing a cyber attack on Iranian missile forces.
A few days after Mr. Trump’s actions, I wrote on this page that Mr. Trump’s actions were a good example of proportionality, but that proportionality is only a guideline in conflicts. Most importantly, that column pointed out that if the new sanctions and the cyber attack did not stop or at least slow Iran’s aggression, they were an inadequate response to the downing of our drone.
As always in the Middle East, fast-moving facts have intervened to muddy any judgment of the adequacy of the president’s response. In early July, British forces seized an Iranian oil tanker which was believed to be on course to deliver oil to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions. About two weeks later, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps troops hijacked the British-flagged tanker, Stena Impero, forcing it into an Iranian port.
Iran has since upped the ante considerably by seizing at least one Indian-flagged tanker and is threatening to impose a toll on all ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes through the strait.
In response to Iran’s actions, Mr. Trump has tried, so far unsuccessfully, to get our NATO allies to help protect ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The British navy has only one ship there — a small frigate — to protect British ships. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that U.S. ships will be protected by our naval forces.
From the tanker mess we can gather that proportionality is an eroding guideline for the Iranians and, as such, must erode in our judgment as well. In the past, “experts” on Iran have always assured us that Iran carefully calibrates its actions against ours to avoid a U.S. military response. But those days are gone. Iran is willing to take far greater risks than pure proportionality and avoidance of military response would allow.
Proportionality — to Iran — means not only that it could seize the British tanker but that it could also seize the Indian ship and threaten every other one passing through the Strait of Hormuz. It means that Iran’s testing of the United States will continue with greater and more dangerous provocations.
We must, therefore, judge Mr. Trump’s proportional response to the drone shoot-down to have failed. His campaign of sanctions is strangling Iran’s economy but not enough to compel Tehran to reduce the level of its aggression.
Is proportionality failing? Or is it that Iran, feeling the pressure of American sanctions, is behaving like a cornered rat? In either case, Iran is becoming even more dangerous than it has been.
Even if you consider only Iran’s diplomatic efforts in reaction to Mr. Trump’s sanctions, you must conclude that they are greatly damaging Iran’s economy and its self-esteem.
Iran’s diplomacy is focused on Britain, France and Germany — presumably the three that have the greatest influence on U.S. policy — promising them the sun, the moon and the stars if only they relieve Iran of the burden of our sanctions. But Iran never gives an inch: Tehran refuses to negotiate anything else unless they are first relieved of the sanctions.
If Iran were offering to negotiate while the sanctions were still in place, in the hope of earning relief from them, that would be entirely different. That would indicate that Iran lacked the power — and, more importantly, the will — to continue its aggression (at least temporarily).
The rat isn’t cornered, at least not yet.
What happens next largely depends on the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Boris Johnson. Mr. Johnson, who took office last week, is faced with the immediate crisis over the tanker seized by Iran and the continued crisis over Brexit. He will certainly consult with Mr. Trump before he takes action on the tanker crisis.
If he is as strong as conservatives believe he is, Mr. Johnson could demand that the European Union increase its sanctions against Iran, or take the U.K. out of Instex (the financial mechanism the U.K., France and Germany have set up to evade U.S. sanctions) or could even go as far as to begin the process of quitting the Obama nuclear weapons deal with Iran. Mr. Trump would likely recommend all three actions to Mr. Johnson.
If he is weak, Mr. Johnson could release the Syria-bound Iranian tanker in exchange for the release of the Stena Impero or negotiate other humiliating terms with Tehran.
Whatever action Mr. Johnson takes won’t change Iran’s behavior. Tehran has a history of taking American lives and will again. When that happens, military action will be the only proportional U.S. response.
• Jed Babbin, a deputy undersecretary of Defense in the George H.W. Bush administration, is the author of “In the Words of Our Enemies.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.