As he pursues major foreign policy priorities over the coming weeks, President Trump must be wary of entangling the U.S. in a four-front conflict. That possibility is unlikely, but not as unlikely as some believe.
In mid-May, Trump will almost certainly withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. If Trump then sanctions European multinationals operating in Iran, Revolutionary Guard-aligned hardliners may bite back against U.S. interests. Preparing to counter any such action and constrain escalation will require a formidable U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf.
Regardless, in June, Trump will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. While that meeting portends improved relations, Trump’s commitment — appropriately — to suspend talks absent progress offers a potential flashpoint. The unpredictability of Pyongyang’s political calculations means that the U.S. may find itself in conflict at short notice.
This cuts to the heart of my argument: A conflict with North Korea would be bad enough, but a simultaneous conflict with Iran would be highly problematic for the U.S. military. In the event of a full-scale war on the Korean Peninsula, it would likely require the U.S. to initiate a defensive rather than offensive strategy against both Pyongyang and Tehran.
Other threats also lurk.
For one, China’s increasingly hostile show of force against Taiwan. In recent weeks, Chinese forces have engaged in training runs for an invasion of the breakaway republic. What if the Chinese were to launch a surprise attack to take advantage of U.S. distractions in Iran or Korea?
Finally, there’s the constant threat-presence of Vladimir Putin. While the Russian leader has a long-term objective of displacing U.S. influence in the Middle East and degrading the West’s relations with Eastern European states, his initiation of conflict with the U.S. cannot be ruled out. This possibility would become especially likely if Putin perceived the U.S. to be overstretched by conflicts in other areas.
Don’t believe me? Then consider Putin’s expenditure of billions of dollars in training for a blitzkrieg invasion of Europe and a severing of U.S. support from that potential battlespace. It speaks to preparation of a Russian war strategy focused on rapidly establishing a stronghold in Eastern Europe that would require massive NATO casualties in any counteroffensive.
Again, don’t get me wrong, the catastrophic potential of all these situations developing simultaneously is very low. But their potential does feed into one another and such a crisis cannot be ruled out.
As Trump considers his policy, he must not become distracted by one international challenge. They are all interlinked.
