Should the U.S. Quit the Iran War Now?
Philip Kotler
This is the biggest question that the public and Congress now faces.
I sat with 40 highly educated men who gathered to debate this question.
For one hour, the moderator recognized different speakers give their individual views.
Then the moderator said, “Let’s put the questions to a vote.”
“Who thinks that the U.S. should continue the war until we get rid of all their uranium and produce a regime change?” He counted the number of raised hands.
“Who thinks that the U.S. should stop the war now to limit the damage that it is doing to our economic growth, inflation, and national debt.” He counted the number of raised hands.
The result: Half of the group voted for continuing the war and half voted for closing down the war.
Those favoring continuing the war used the following arguments:
1. The U.S. must stop Iran from ever making a nuclear missile. We would be at their mercy.
2. The rest of the world will lose their opinion of the U.S. and its power. They will not rely on our future policies and causes.
Those favoring ending the war used the following arguments:
1. The U.S. can’t create regime change just by bombing Iran. We won’t put our soldiers to fight a war on the ground.
2. We would make it clear that the U.S. will bomb Iran every time Iran seems to be getting close to building a bomb. This will weigh heavily on Iran and possibly lead to regime change.
In Retrospect
Trump chose to attack Iran mostly on his feeling that Iran had caused trouble over the last 50 years. Previous U.S. Presidents tried to negotiate but never achieved any results.
Trump and his appointees gave different reasons why the attack was necessary. There was no evidence of an agreed-upon objective, a clear strategic plan, and a sign of when the war would end.
Is There a Better way to Determine Whether and When the U.S. Should Attack Iran?
The best way, in my mind, is to run war games. The military has done this many times. They have played war games between China and the U.S. The major finding is that the U.S. would lose in a war game with China. War games bring out all the possibilities and eventualities to sensitize the players to factors they never even considered. I believe that if the military had run war games involving Iran and other countries that would get involved (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Israel, European countries, etc.), these games would give a more realistic assessment of the probability of victory and the cost of victory.
Game playing should also be used to decide on the likely consequences of not attacking. It would involve trying out different negotiation tactics, alliance strategies and spending strategies.
The purpose of these exercises is not to leave the ultimate decision-making to the military. The purpose is to bring more critical understanding to those decision makers in the executive branch and Congress of what might be the short run and long run consequences of each possible strategy.
