Thomas Friedman: Trump Has No Idea How to End the War with Iran

SadaNews - American writer Thomas Friedman stated that bombing and destroying Iran will not necessarily lead to regime change or improve the country's future; rather, it could lead to widespread chaos and make the country uninhabitable.

The writer opens his column in the New York Times by recalling his memories of visiting Tehran in 1996, when he noticed the slogan "Death to America" emblazoned on the wall of a hotel, a symbolic indication of how deeply anti-American rhetoric is rooted within the structure of the Iranian regime.

The writer noted that at that time he hoped that the young Iranians' desire for economic openness would prevail over the leadership's policies, but that did not happen because the regime is more entrenched than previously thought.

Friedman wondered, after the recent war broke out between the United States and Israel with Iran: What if what is necessary is impossible? And what if Iran's transformation is much more important than war critics acknowledge, but at the same time, much harder than the architects of this war understand?

He explained that the Iranian regime, despite its unpopularity among many citizens, is entrenched in state and societal institutions, from municipalities and schools to the military and banking sector and local militias, making its overthrow by military force a risk that could plunge the approximately 90 million citizens into complete chaos instead of transitioning to democracy.

Contradictory Statements

Nothing illustrates the extent to which this regime is entrenched more than the fact that Iran replaced its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei - who was killed at the beginning of the war - with his son Mojtaba Khamenei, who is also said to be one of the hardliners.

Friedman believes the war started without a clear vision of its end and criticized what he sees as a lack of coherent strategy from U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump's statements about Iran's future seem contradictory, according to Friedman; he speaks of regime change, then says he does not care about Iran's future, and the next day claims he will have a say in choosing its next leader, then opens the door for negotiations, and the next day demands "unconditional surrender."

As for Netanyahu, he sees a political interest in keeping the conflict open and may be - according to the writer - happy to turn Iran into another Gaza, simply continuing to "mow the grass," meaning periodically suppressing threats there, having described Israel as the modern Sparta, knowing that Sparta requires ongoing military friction.

Friedman warned that keeping Israel at war with Iran and Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Hezbollah allows Netanyahu to prolong his trial on corruption charges and avoid forming a commission of inquiry regarding his failure to prevent Hamas's attack on October 7, 2023.

The Day After

Friedman acknowledged that military strikes may have weakened Iran's nuclear and military capabilities, which could limit its threat to the region; therefore, he believes the wise option is to halt fighting after achieving these strikes' core military objectives and leave room for what he calls "the 'day after' policy of the day after."

This day after policy refers to the internal conflicts and discussions that may arise within the ruling elite in Iran and between it and society after the war stops, with Friedman predicting that criticisms will escalate within Iran itself due to the significant economic and military losses the country has incurred.

On the other hand, the writer warns that continued bombing could lead to the destruction of Iran's civil and environmental infrastructure, such as water and energy facilities, potentially making the country uninhabitable.

Friedman concludes that if regime change occurs, it will likely come from within the ruling elite itself after the war stops, rather than as a result of continuous bombing that its proponents hope will automatically lead to a popular uprising.

Therefore, the writer believes that the best that military strategy can achieve is to push Iran towards a less hostile path, while the worst it could cause is to turn it into a collapsed and chaotic state, a scenario that would have catastrophic consequences for the entire region.

Source: New York Times