New York Times: The Cost of Continuing the Fight and Withdrawing Troops Is Equally Expensive

The New York Times said that Trump faces a difficult dilemma: to continue expanding the conflict or try to withdraw after declaring victory. Both options come with serious risks.

The paper pointed out, "The second week of the war brought a realization by the Trump administration that Iran's willingness and ability to disrupt the world economy exceeded the expectations of officials, as did Tehran's ability to expand the war throughout the region."

Trump is facing a severe choice - to stay and fight for the ambitious goals he set, or try to exit this escalating conflict that is spreading and causing devastating military, diplomatic, and economic repercussions.

Both scenarios will lead to serious consequences, which the White House initially underestimated.

First, the high cost of continuing the fight

-- means "dealing with a weakened but still dangerous opponent." Iran has proven its ability to carry out asymmetric attacks. "Tehran's current strategy aims to strangle the world economy."

-- Transportation through the key oil artery of the Strait of Hormuz has practically come to a standstill. At least 16 merchant ships have been attacked. Despite Trump's call for "bravery," tanker owners have refused to take risks.

-- Oil prices remain around $100 per barrel.

-- 13 U.S. soldiers have died. Total casualties exceed 2,100, with more than 1,348 being Iranian civilians.

-- The geographic scope of the conflict has expanded: the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq have been attacked.

-- The U.S. is forced to seek partners: Trump called on China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the UK to send naval forces to secure the Strait of Hormuz. This is the first time the U.S. has publicly admitted it lacks sufficient resources to solve this task alone.

-- Domestic political risks are increasing: Trump supporters who had promised not to get involved in new wars express concerns.

-- Occupying Khark Island means controlling Iran's oil exports, but requires long-term occupation and guarding against attacks by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, repeating a scenario that Trump had promised to avoid.

-- The risk of an operation to seize uranium materials is extremely high. The fuel is stored in steel cylinders hidden in deep tunnels in gaseous form. Any mistake could result in toxic contamination or even a nuclear reaction. Trump admitted that the decision to seize the materials has not yet been made, and as he put it, the U.S. is "far from that step."

-- Meanwhile, the issue of allies remains: Netanyahu ignored the U.S. advice not to bomb major oil storage facilities in Tehran. Israel's attack caused oil prices to surge and triggered retaliatory attacks by Iran on Saudi and UAE facilities. Additionally, there is disagreement on whether a second front targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon is needed.

-- There is another important detail: According to the White House assessment, the war may last up to six weeks. This means that when Trump travels to China for the summit, the fighting will be at its peak.

Second, the cost of withdrawing now is equally high

-- A significant loss of reputation: Analysts believe that exiting the conflict now equates to admitting failure to achieve the main goal - eliminating the "nuclear threat" from Iran.

-- What will be left behind is a "reinvigorated theocratic regime." The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militias retain their organizational structure and control over the country. Washington's hoped-for large-scale protests have not occurred - they were suppressed.

-- Leaving without resolving the nuclear issue will give Iran the incentive to develop weapons in the future.

The article points out that Trump is vacillating between announcing a near-victory and acknowledging that there is a tough fight ahead.

He said in an interview that he would rely on his instincts to determine when to leave: "I can feel it in my bones."

Original: toutiao.com/article/1859787582611532/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author themselves.