If only things were that simple. Killing Soleimani was a symbolic victory, but did it actually lessen Iran's ability to impose upon its neighbors, or to organize among its many militias? This isn't Desert Storm, and you won't win solely through controlling the air, because there is an easy organizing apparatus among Shia militias.

What the US, Israel, and the KSA have never accepted is that Iran was the major winner of the Syrian Civil War. That dynamic played into why the US supported MBS as he attempted to be the 'wildcard' in the ME, where now he has a quagmire in Yemen, gave up his Qatar beef without actually extracting anything from Qatar, and then suffering a refinery attack for which the US wouldn't even directly respond. That dynamic also plays into why Israel bombs Damascus every few days, and justifies Israeli concerns about strategic depth, especially from the Golan.

Trump, in my view, was misled by Kushner and Netanyahu about the willingness of Iran to negotiate if he pulled out of the JCPOA. The shrewd move would have been to threaten sanctions unless the Iranians agreed to missile and even drone limitations. Instead, you had the sanctions regime return, and the Iranians have plenty of experience working within sanctions limitations. Then you had the Iranians show how far they were willing to go to gain leverage, attacking tankers, and generally threatening the Strait of Hormuz. None of this would have been solved by a MOAB.

It is clear what the Israelis and the KSA want, and Trump was certainly going to give it to them, if the Iranians responded in a direct way. Instead, they responded according to their military doctrine, and showed the KSA in particular that it would take more than a refinery attack for the US to protect them.

This post was edited on 1/22/21 at 11:38 pm