- A number of former defence, diplomatic, and national-security officials agree that President Donald Trump made the right move by not pulling the trigger on Iran over the attack on a US drone.
- “I’d be very careful about starting a war over a drone,” Leon Panetta, the former secretary of defence under President Barack Obama, told MSNBC on Tuesday.
- Other former officials stressed that the main reason it was good to hold back is because the administration has not yet clarified its objective.
- Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.
President Donald Trump decided at the last minute not to strike Iran over the downing of a US drone, a move that a number of former defence, diplomatic, and national-security officials feel was an effective move to keep the standoff from escalating out of control.
In a shocking escalation in the wake of a string of tanker attacks in the Middle East, Iranian forces shot down a US Navy drone over the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday. The next day, Trump sent out a short yet ominous tweet: “Iran made a very big mistake!”
The US was preparing for retaliatory strikes, but Trump said he called off the attack at the last minute.
“I’d be very careful about starting a war over a drone,” Leon Panetta, who served as the secretary of defence during the Obama administration, told MSNBC Friday morning, adding that “miscalculations and bad decisions” are the kinds of things that “could ultimately lead to, whether either side wants it, a military confrontation.”
He did criticise the Trump administration for its chaotic approach to a situation in which Iran and the US remain on a collision course. “This is a moment for a strong steady hand and a clear strategy. Frankly, we don’t have that right now.”
The standoff with Iran comes at a time of confusion at the Pentagon because of unexpected leadership changes, the breakdown of traditional national-security processes, and mixed messaging from senior administration officials.
“This is one time when the President’s indecision may have saved thousands of lives,” Samantha Vinograd, a former Obama-era National Security Council official, tweetedFriday morning, adding that “Iran’s response could have had fatal consequences” for both Americans in the region and US allies and partners.
“Calling off the strikes was the right thing to do from a security perspective,” she said. “Striking Iranian assets bc of their downing of a drone would not have been proportional, and it would have put thousands of Americans (if not more) at risk.”
Trump said the three planned US strikes could have killed “150 people,” a vast escalation that could have triggered an Iranian retaliation in kind.
The former National Security Council official Ned Price told INSIDER that the Trump administration was right to hold off on striking Iran because it hasn’t gone through the necessary prerequisites for that type of action.
“The administration seems to be going about this backwards, unsurprisingly,” he said. “What they should be doing first is getting our partners and allies on board in condemning Iran’s action and vowing collectively not to stand for it.”
“They also need to articulate the strategy going forward,” Price added. “The key point is that no response – whether it’s economic sanctions or something else – will mean anything unless it’s nested in a broader strategy and backed by our closest partners and allies.”
Brett McGurk, a former State Department official, argued that a strike would have reinforced the Iranian view that it is under attack and its actions are defensive.
The Trump administration, amid rising tensions with Iran in the wake of America’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal and the reimposition of sanctions, is targeting Tehran, Iran’s capital, with a “maximum-pressure” strategy. This approach took on a military component when the US began moving fighters, bombers, and an aircraft carrier into the region in response to threats from Iran the Pentagon has yet to elaborate on.
Iran has expressed concern over changes in the US force posture.
“If the enemy believes it’s already under attack and is lashing out (in its view) defensively, then limited strikes absent serious diplomatic initiatives are unlikely to change its mindset. Thus, there is a higher than normal risk of tit-for-tat escalation,” McGurk said on Twitter.
Agreeing with Price, McGurk said clear prerequisites are needed for this kind of strike, and the biggest is a clearly defined strategic objective. “How would strikes fit into the strategy? Are they more or less likely to bring Iran to the table? Are we prepared to further escalate if initial strikes lead to more provocations from Iran?” he asked.
“Trump’s ordered pause should be used to ask these and other hard questions about the strategy, its aims, and the mounting risks should the policy remain unchanged,” McGurk added. “Last night is the first time Trump took Iran policy off auto pilot and that’s good.”
This view is shared by a number of experts, who have warned that striking Iran could be a complete disaster.
Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Site highlights each day to your inbox.