
Iran
presents
a
real
dilemma.
I’m
writing
this
on
Saturday,
and
the
United
States
is
not
(yet)
bombing
Iran.
For
Donald
Trump,
this
is
great. It’s
great
if
Israel
solves
the
Iran
problem
—
eliminating
Iran’s
path
to
a
nuclear
weapon
—
without
the
United
States
getting
involved. Trump
can
claim
to
have
achieved
a
great
victory
without
the
United
States
having
paid
any
price.
Alternatively,
it’s
great
for
Donald
Trump
if
he
can
mean-tweet
his
way
out
of
a
crisis. If
Trump
can
threaten
to
kill
the
leadership
of
Iran,
as
he
has,
without
actually
doing
anything,
and
if,
as
Trump
hopes,
Iran
surrenders
unconditionally,
Trump
will
again
have
achieved
a
great
victory
at
no
cost.
Or
perhaps
the
Iranian
regime
will
accept
some
face-saving
compromise
with
Trump
that
allows
both
the
U.S.
and
Iran
to
declare
victory,
and
the
U.S.
would
never
have
to
join
the
fray.
Any
of
these
solutions,
from
the
perspective
of
the
United
States,
would
be
extraordinary. (I’m
setting
aside
the
local
costs,
such
as
the
Iranians
and
Israelis
who
will
have
been
killed
or
wounded,
upending
relationships
between
governments,
and
the
like. I’m
being
parochial
here.)
Trump
faces
a
crisis
only
if
he
must
make
a
hard
decision. If
the
Israeli
bombs
and
the
mean
tweets
don’t
work,
Trump
faces
an
excruciatingly
hard
choice.
I’m
certainly
glad
that
Trump
has
a
former
Fox
News
host
serving
as
his
secretary
of
defense
available
to
give
him
advice.
If
Trump
has
to
act,
what
should
he
do?
On
the
one
hand,
Trump
can
choose
not
to
bomb
Iran.
Iran
will
develop
nuclear
weapons. Iran
may
choose
to
use
one
of
those
weapons
on
Tel
Aviv. Israel
would
of
course
retaliate. It
would
not
look
good
to
have
World
War
III,
or
something
like
it,
occur
on
Trump’s
watch.
Although
I’m
sure
that,
if
World
War
III
happened,
Trump
would
explain
that
this
was
his
brilliant
plan
to
solve
the
Middle
East
crisis
once
and
for
all. And
the
MAGA
loyalists
would
of
course
agree.
Even
if
Iran
develops
a
nuclear
weapon
and
does
not
immediately
trigger
a
holocaust,
that
doesn’t
solve
the
problem. As
North
Korea
has
demonstrated,
once
Iran
has
nukes,
it
is
permanently
immune
from
attack. No
matter
what
Iran
might
do,
its
leaders
could
proceed
confidently,
knowing
that
neither
Israel
nor
the
United
States
would
attack
it. That
would
permit
Iran
to
do
many
evil
things
in
the
future.
Moreover,
other
countries
in
the
Middle
East
—
such
as
Saudi
Arabia
and
perhaps
Egypt
—
won’t
sit
by
silently
as
Iran
develops
the
bomb. Those
countries
will
develop
their
own
nuclear
weapons,
and
we’ll
have
multiple
nuclear-armed
states
in
one
of
the
most
combustible
regions
in
the
world. That
might
not
yet
be
World
War
III,
but
it
ain’t
good.
On
the
other
hand,
Trump
can
choose
to
bomb
Iran,
temporarily
eliminating
its
nuclear
weapons
program. Iran
will
surely
respond,
perhaps
by
attacking
American
troops
stationed
in
the
Middle
East,
perhaps
by
attacking
shipping
in
the
Strait
of
Hormuz,
perhaps
by
attacking
energy
infrastructure
to
raise
the
price
of
oil,
perhaps
by
attacking
American
soft
targets
around
the
world,
perhaps
by
launching
cyberattacks
on
the
United
States;
you
don’t
need
much
of
an
imagination
here. Everywhere
you
look,
it’s
bad.
At
the
end
of
the
day,
Iran’s
nuclear
weapons
program
will
have
been
temporarily
destroyed.
But
that
program
would
likely
build
back
—
deep
underground,
where
no
one
can
monitor
it
—
so
Iran
would
ultimately
develop
a
nuclear
weapon,
after
all. In
the
meantime,
the
United
States
will
have
suffered,
one
way
or
the
other
and,
after
the
bombing
stopped,
there
would
be
another
failed
state
in
the
Middle
East. The
United
States
can
try
to
turn
the
remnants
of
Iran
into
a
liberal
democracy,
but
that
generally
doesn’t
turn
out
too
well
—
think
of
Afghanistan
and
Iraq
as
the
most
recent
examples.
If
I
had
to
guess,
I’d
say
that
the
United
States
will
bomb
Iran. Trump
has
said
that
Iran
cannot
have
a
nuclear
weapon. For
Trump
to
have
said
that,
and
then
left
Iran
with
the
capacity
to
manufacture
a
nuclear
weapon,
would
make
Trump
look
weak. Trump
can’t
tolerate
apparent
weakness,
so
he’ll
bomb
Iran,
consequences
be
damned.
The
counterargument,
of
course,
is
that
Trump
always
chickens
out. Although
Trump
would
love
the
first
day
when
we
bombed
Iran
—
lots
of
loud
explosions
and
everyone’s
paying
attention
to
me!
—
he’d
hate
the
day
after,
when
he’d
have
to
deal
with
the
consequences. Since
Trump
has
no
guiding
principles,
he
may
just
chicken
out
to
reduce
the
immediate
criticism
he’d
have
to
face.
Either
way,
I
can
tell
you
this:
If
Trump
chooses
not
to
attack,
six
months
from
now
pundits
will
insist
that
was
a
bad
idea.
If
instead
Trump
chooses
to
attack,
six
months
from
now
pundits
will
insist
that
was
a
bad
idea.
That’s
why
it’s
easy
to
be
a
pundit,
but
hard
to
be
the
president.
On
the
third
hand,
six
months
from
now,
whatever
the
result,
I
guarantee
you
that
Trump
himself
will
insist
that
the
underlying
problems
were
not
his
fault
and
his
decisions
were
uniformly
perfect.
The
man
is
a
fool,
but
he
sleeps
well
at
night.
Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].





