Conor here: At the risk of some overlap with Yves’ Iran post, we’re featuring this post from Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies who offer a macro view of the dangers the US poses to Iran and the world. Even if an exit strategy can be found, the next war —on Cuba, Nigeria, Iran again—won’t be far away, and they include a useful reminder that these wars of aggression are, according to the judges at the Nuremberg Trials, “the supreme international crime,” because it “contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” With that in mind, their proposed solutions, such as Israel and Iran learning to live together and the US repairing relations with Tehran seem to understate the severity of the moment.
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies. Benjamin is co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace. Davies is an independent journalist and a researcher with CODEPINK. Cross posted from Common Dreams.
The United States has once again launched a war in the Middle East based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction. Like the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US assault on Iran rests on allegations that international inspectors have already debunked. But beyond the false pretext lies an even more pressing question that few officials in Washington seem willing—or able—to answer: What is the US exit strategy from its war on Iran?
President Trump has justified the attack by claiming that Iran refuses to renounce nuclear weapons. As he prepared to launch the war, Trump repeatedly claimed, “We haven’t heard those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, responded by reiterating Iran’s long-standing policy, stating plainly: “Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon.”
After years of unprecedented inspections, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) never found evidence that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program. In 2015 the agency declared its investigation complete and subsequently monitored Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement. The IAEA repeatedly confirmed that Iran was abiding by the deal—until the United States under Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018.
Yet the endless repetition of these disproven allegations by US and Israeli politicians has served as a political pretext for “maximum pressure” economic coercion, escalating threats, and now full-scale illegal aggression against Iran.
Under international law, aggression is not just another war crime—it is the gravest crime of all. The judges at the Nuremberg Trials called aggression “the supreme international crime,” because it “contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Those convicted of launching aggressive war were held responsible for all the horrors that followed. For that reason, the Nuremberg tribunal reserved its harshest punishment—death by hanging—for the defendants convicted of planning and waging aggressive war, while those found guilty only of war crimes or crimes against humanity received lesser sentences.
The wisdom of that distinction is borne out by the horrors taking place in Iran and neighboring countries today. In the first week of the US-Israeli bombing of Iran, they have already destroyed schools and hospitals and killed hundreds of innocent civilians. On March 2nd, President Trump said that the US plans to achieve all its goals in Iran through four or five weeks of this kind of mass slaughter.
At a Pentagon press conference a few hours earlier, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was vaguer, saying it could take two to six weeks, and later said it could be eight weeks. But the US government is clearly under a number of pressures to end the war within a limited time frame.
First, the United States launched this war with already depleted weapons stockpiles, after expending thousands of bombs and missiles in prolonged campaigns in Yemen and sending unprecedented quantities of weapons to Ukraine, Israel and other allies since 2022.
If the war drags on for more than a few weeks, US forces will begin to run short of air-defense interceptors, cruise missiles, and other critical munitions, with Israeli air defenses expected to face shortages even sooner. The US and Israel are therefore gambling that they can destroy enough of Iran’s missiles before they themselves run out of interceptors needed to stop them.
Yet recent experience suggests this gamble is likely to fail. US bombing campaigns against Ansar Allah (the Houthis) in Yemen under both Biden and Trump failed to eliminate its missile capabilities or reopen the Red Sea to commercial shipping. Iran is a far more formidable opponent—twelve times larger than Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen, with missiles dispersed in hardened facilities across the country and mounted on mobile launchers disguised as civilian trucks. Destroying them all is highly unlikely.
Second, the longer this war drags on, the greater the shock it will deliver to the global economy. Iran has already attacked several oil tankers and closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil supply normally passes. Qatar has also halted LNG shipments after Iranian drones struck a major gas facility. This removed nearly 20 percent of the world’s traded natural gas from the market and sent prices in Europe soaring.
The role of the sovereign wealth funds of the Gulf sheikdoms in global finance means that financial markets will be further impacted as they dip into those funds to make up for the lost revenue from the disruption of their oil and gas exports.
At the same time, airlines around the world have suspended flights across much of the Middle East, rerouting aircraft around the conflict zone and stranding thousands of travelers as the war ripples through global commerce. And already, in just the first week of the war, US taxpayers are being asked to shoulder another $50 billion in war spending.
Third, Trump has until now justified his illegal threats and uses of force to Americans, and especially to his MAGA base, by keeping his wars limited in scope and duration and avoiding US casualties. But he risks failing on all those counts in Iran, and reaping a predictable political whirlwind.
A University of Maryland poll at the beginning of February found that only 21% of Americans said they would approve of a US attack on Iran, with 49% opposed. Even among Republicans, only 40% were in favor.
US governments are usually able to generate support for their wars in their early stages, with help from corporate media and retired generals linked to the arms industry whom they trot out as military experts. But opposition to a war always increases over time as the real-world results become clear to more of the public. Trump has launched this war with only one in five Americans supporting it in the first place, so he knows he must either create an illusion of success or face a dire political reaction.
To make Trump’s challenge harder, he’s gone to war against a country whose leaders fully understand all these dynamics. Iran has explicitly set out to inflict hundreds of US casualties, and to expand and prolong the war beyond the limits of the US war plan. Iran’s leaders have recognized that their scripted, symbolic response to last year’s 12-day US-Israeli war, with a few fairly harmless strikes on the US Al-Udeid air base in Qatar, was not an effective deterrent to further US-Israeli aggression.
This time, Iran understands that the only way to deter future attacks is to inflict real costs on the US. Iran killed six US troops in action in the first days of the war, has inflicted serious damage on the US 5th Fleet’s base in Bahrain, and destroyed or damaged air defense radar systems at seven US bases.
On the other side, the US and Israel are trying to destroy as many of Iran’s missiles as they can before Iran can use them. As NIAC (the National Iranian-American Council) wrote on March 3rd, “The conflict is increasingly defined by sustainability – missile inventories versus interceptor stocks.”
The course of the war will depend very much on how successful each side is in achieving these goals, as the whole world watches in horror.
Yet in Washington, the most basic strategic questions remain unanswered. At Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and General Caine’s early-morning press conference on March 2, a reporter asked the questions that should now be on everyone’s mind: “What percentage of Iranian long-strike capabilities are still in the fight? And what is our exit strategy here, and when will it be deployed?”
Hegseth appeared at a loss to answer them. He waffled and eventually fell back on the familiar claim that Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon—Trump’s recycled weapons-of-mass-destruction narrative from the Iraq war. General Caine sidestepped the question more professionally, offering a technical explanation about the difficulty of completing bomb-damage assessments during ongoing combat.
But neither Hegseth nor Caine—nor any other US official—has addressed the fundamental question of an exit strategy. Since the United States has not invaded and occupied Iran, there are no US ground forces to withdraw, as there were in Iraq or Afghanistan. If US and Israeli forces begin to run low on weapons, they could simply declare victory, halt the bombing and replenish their arsenals before launching another round of attacks later.
Iran’s strategy appears designed to prevent exactly that outcome—by turning this into a war the United States will not want to repeat. That means inflicting real costs: US casualties, political backlash at home, strained relations with allies, global economic disruption and a further erosion of Washington’s standing in the world.
Even if the US is ready to end the war in a few weeks, Iran may insist on concessions, such as the lifting of illegal sanctions and US withdrawal from bases in the Persian Gulf, before it will end its attacks on increasingly indefensible US bases. Those are terms that we would encourage the US government to accept.
This would be a real exit strategy from war on Iran, not just in order to regroup and launch another bombing campaign when the US and Israel have replenished their weapons stockpiles, but to actually make peace, as Trump keeps saying he wants to do.
Israel and Iran face an existential choice between gradually destroying each other and accepting that they must learn to co-exist in the same region of the world. The United States government must decide which of those choices it will support.
When the current war is over, whatever government is in power in Iran, the United States should work to repair US-Iranian relations, and tell the Israelis that it will not take part in or support renewed Israeli aggression against Iran. That would give the people of Iran a much better chance to build the political system they want than bombing them and imposing coercive sanctions to wreck their economy.
Such a shift in US policy could finally start to unravel the whole web of illegal US and Israeli aggression and occupation that has afflicted, colonized and destabilized the Middle East for so many decades. That would be a form of regime change that people all over the region, and the world, would welcome.
29 comments
Comments are closed.
You can’t have an exit strategy unless you have an entrance strategy. The entrance is, in fact, your exit and we don’t have a valid, certainly not legal, entrance.
If you have clear goals before starting a war, you will better assess what you need to achieve your goals: munitions, soldiers, time, etc. Then once you’re reasonably satisfied you’ve accomplished your objectives, you can declare victory and exit.
On the other side of the coin, the Trump regime should have known Operation Epic Lunacy was flawed. Trump should have consulted with opposition sources some of whom would have warned about Iran’s potential threat which, in the heart of the world’s energy resources is magnified, was too risky and possibly global repercussions. Instead, Trump it seems was persuaded by people who told him Iran was weaker than, in fact, it was.
I’m not so sure that there is a proper exit strategy. Trump launched this war under the assumption that it would be a quick win like Venezuela. Go in and murder the leadership under the ruse of diplomacy, wait for the people to come out onto the streets and have them take over the government for him. Well that didn’t work not least of all because Trump murdered their religious leader which actually united the Iranians. It may be that he was influenced by a canned poll he was shown beforehand that said that attacking Iran would have a 90% approval rating. Must have been taken at the American Enterprise Institute but it won’t even play well in Peoria. That is why every day there is a different message coming from the White House with the latest being that they want to take Iran’s oil to keep it out of the hands of terrorist. It seems that Trump has now convinced himself that the US and Israel has won because of all the people they are killing and all the buildings that they are destroying – including schools and hospitals. But Chas Freeman has suggested that what we may be seeing is rope-a-dope where Iran will take all that punishment and when the US/Israel is short of missile interceptors and other military gear, will then pummel them both with a bit of shock and awe.
>> When the current war is over, whatever government is in power in Iran, the United States should work to repair US-Iranian relations, and tell the Israelis that it will not take part in or support renewed Israeli aggression against Iran.
And Iran is supposed to take their word on that???
The US has broken faith and trust multiple times, and that will not be easily undone. I question whether trust in the US can be repaired at all at this point.
Yes, that take is seriously flawed. It´s Ukraine all over again: “US no party to the war and thus arbiter.”
Where do Benjamin and Davies get this nutty idea from…
And also to somehow paint Israel and Iran as equally mortal enemies to each other finds little confirmation in real history.
Exit strategy? seriously? There is none.
Ignorance is a condition, stupidity is a strategy. Once is coincidence, twice might be happenstance, three times is enemy action.
The team making this war happen have repeatedly foreclosed options for deescalation. They escalated the war with war crimes each worse than the last. They have also closed off the possibility of negotiations, not only one way and at one time. They’ve even made certain to make it impossible for Iran to surrender.
They’ve attacked desalination plants. That is a war crime. Israel and the Gulf states are much more dependent on desalination for their water than Iran a state surrounded by mountains.
I’ve heard that per the Epstein files he was discussing how to kill the poor with Bill Gates.
Choking out much of the world’s production of oil, gas, fertilizer, and feed-stock chemicals could have that effect. As could the massive financial carnage that would ensue.
Genocide is a word regularly used for killing in the low millions. Don’t we need another word when talking about killing billions?
” Don’t we need another word when talking about killing billions?”
We have one, Jackpot.
See: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jackpot_trilogy
NATO continues to lose weapons that cannot be replaced unless China allows REs into the MIC.
Simples.
Trump no longer controls the path of this conflict, so I think the exit will be defined for him, not by him. Indeed, the strategy of an initial knockout blow via assassination was anticipated by Iran, and as pointed out above, has had an effect precisely opposite its intention. Everything I have read suggests Iran will use this conflict to force the US out, to prevent the US/Israel from being a threat in the future. Iran controls this conflict now, it has girded for a war of attrition; the US has not. At some appropriate point, Iran could provide the US with an exit strategy, a means of withdrawal without complete humiliation, but would Netanyahu cooperate? Likely not.
Once Israeli and US interceptors are depleted, and Iran continues to wreak havoc on Israel, destroy critical infrastructure, is it not likely Netanyahu will order nuclear strikes on Iran? It is his last card, and my guess is he will play it without asking Trump for permission. Alastair Crooke has described how much political control Netanyahu exerts over Trump. Perhaps the inevitable waning of Trump’s domestic support past some critical point will remove this leverage.
I don’t have the background to draw these conclusions on my own, just assemble them from reading and listening to NC sources and commentariat. Although this war seems likely to be Trump’s Waterloo, we are still at the mercy of madmen.
As well as the war against Iran appears to be going, I think Iran will dictate exit strategy to the u.s. and Israel.
What if there literally isn’t an exit strategy because they don’t plan on exiting? Like what huckaby said?
Just spit balling the exit strategy here: No real exit, just a ‘regime’ change to corporatocracy with DT as chairman.
-The Corporate Capture of the United States
Posted by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance & Financial Regulation, on Thursday, January 5, 2012-
“American corporations today are like the great European monarchies of yore: They have the power to control the rules under which they function and to direct the allocation of public resources. This is not a prediction of what’s to come; this is a simple statement of the present state of affairs. Corporations have effectively captured the United States: its judiciary, its political system, and its national wealth, without assuming any of the responsibilities of dominion. Evidence is everywhere.”
The U.S. will “exit” Iran when they are told to “exit” by their Israeli handlers, the same as the U.S. “entry strategy.”
They plan to exit through Armageddon.
They (US and ISR) have to be considering nukes now, as badly as this is going)
Yeah and when Armageddon doesn’t show are the offenders going to pull a Heaven’s Gate? Will the remaining sane hands near power take action to protect their gov pensions and stock portfolios? To me the real question is when these people make their move and in response to what. Not everyone in power is on Team Revelation but I think a lot of them are fine with seeing how far things can go before a soft coup or pushing Vance to invoke the 25th
This seems increasingly likely to me as well. The (relatively) sane among the Trump circle banding together to invoke the 25th Amendment, or failing that, Fearless Leader “strokes out”. Least likely: a plot like the German generals who tried to assassinate Hitler. Desperate times call for desperate remedies.
Unfortunately, in Trump’s cabinet the (relatively) sane don’t have enough votes. The Demented One’s position is secure.
The Palantir-spook faction must have game-planned this and have various means.
A Chinese guy called Pat Zee who somehow gets close to the Fuhrer?
An unfortunate heart attack?
Or just release the Kompromat on Trump, as you’d have to think they also have a copy?
etc etc
US taxpayers are being asked to shoulder another $50 billion in war spending.
I don’t recall anyone asking
The thought occurs that “current events” may have a negative impact on recruitment to US armed forces. This might lead to some form of pressure from the services to get out before a manpower crisis is added to the logistics problems.
The exit strategy is dictated by Israel, to its US proxy.
Add in a little Evangelical Red Heifer Armageddon Rapture repartee from the US White Christian Nationalists like Hegseth and Huckabee— et Voila!
Take no prisoners, scorched salted earth. Old timey Old Testament solutions in 2026.
Between the mid-east, AI- singularity, and anthropogenic Climate Change and the Sixth Extinction, my warm-fuzzy cross-linked polyethylene vat is empty, sun-baked and incapable of holding any of that scarce kool-aid.
I believe that, at some point, Trump will beg either Putin or Xi for help. He’ll plead, “I’ll do anything! Just stop Iran!”
They will, I believe, tell him that the solution is simple; stop Israel.
Trump may have to “fall on his sword” to short circuit the Zio-Finance control over the West.
The thought occurs that the only conventional way this ends is if there is “regime change” in Jerusalem (and, perhaps, also in Washington).
The US and Israel have committed the “supreme international crime” with their war of aggression against Iran. The leadership of both countries should face prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
As for any ‘peaceful coexistence’ to follow it can only happen if Israel is eliminated as an ethno-exclusive, ethno-supremacist state. Only if Palestinians are allowed full democratic rights, including full rights of return, and full compensation for their stolen lands might this ever become possible. In other words, and speaking plainly, this is never going to happen so, Israel must not be allowed to exist after its genocide in Gaza and its multiple wars of aggression against its neighboring countries. It is madness that the US has supported this criminal gangster state for so long. Time to cut off all life support, and let this parasite state collapse on its own. That is when we will have a lasting peace in the Middle East
The Israeli nuclear strike option will likely face an ultimatum from Russia, China, or Pakistan threatening nuclear retaliation. Trump will not sacrifice New York and Washington for Tel Aviv and Haifa.
Yes, but Netanyahu will sacrifice New York and Washington for Eretz Israel.
It would be more like Moscow and Beijing reading Tel Aviv the riot act.
“Bibi, are you sure the Pentagon will follow obviously suicidal orders from the White House? We are now talking to the Joint Chiefs directly. Make of that what you will.”
My god, the worst Medea can come up with is illegal? How about war crimes? How about support fo genocide, which is GENOCIDE.
She is too embedded in the US point of view.
Defeat will be ok, but I’d prefer surrender. Trump must surrender himself and SatanYahoo up to the Iranians, who no doubt would put them both on trial.
Once found guilty, they might be a given a little time to say their farewells!