President Trump’s decision to call off military strikes against Iran in response to the downing of an unmanned aerial vehicle is drawing both criticism and support. Was it a case of blinking? Or was it the right call to back away from something that could have triggered a cycle of retaliation?
It’s really debatable. On the one hand, Iran has been waging a low-grade war on the United States for decades. They’ve backed terrorist attacks like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. They provided improvised explosive device parts that killed American servicemen. This is a regime that has openly declared that they want to wipe Israel off the map. Downing the MQ-4 Triton unmanned aerial vehicle operating in international airspace so soon after being caught placing limpet mines on oil tankers is just the latest in the list of reasons.
On the other hand, all America lost was a maritime surveillance drone. This wasn’t like the case when USS Samuel B. Roberts hit a mine laid by the Iranians 31 years ago. No American personnel were wounded. This is one benefit to unmanned aerial vehicles — we lose one, and it can be replaced in the next defense bill.
The loss, though, undoubtedly affected our surveillance over the Strait of Hormuz. Who knows what misdeeds could be carried out in the time it would take for the surveillance capabilities to be restored? The timing is a big question, too. The aborted strike against Iran took a while to plan, and the U.S. did spend time maneuvering ships into position. The sudden call-off of a “disproportionate” strike after Iran’s track record does seem like weakness.
Some of Trump’s critics are citing the infamous “red line” Barack Obama drew with regards to the use of weapons of mass destruction by Syrian President Bashar Assad. This is like comparing apples to pork chops. A single instance of shooting down a military drone over international waters is nowhere near using sarin gas against civilians on the scale of unacceptable behavior. Therefore, folks who wanted to see America lay waste to Iran’s nuclear program over the Triton were expecting too much. The likely strike would have been against missile batteries and radar installations and would have been very limited in scope.
Trump has drawn a red line with Iran that he will have to enforce: harm to Americans. He made it clear in his string of tweets that Iran only escaped a military strike because no Americans were injured or killed. If Iran or any of their terrorist stooges harm Americans, the option for military force is on the table. He did announce that additional sanctions had been imposed on Iran, and those sanctions may do more harm to Iran over the long term than a military strike would.
The line between commendable restraint and weakness that invites aggression can be a thin one, and President Trump is clearly balancing it. With his actions since taking office, especially when contrasted to those of his predecessor, he’s earned the benefit of the doubt. If Iran makes a habit out of shooting down American UAVs or use a future shoot-down to enable other aggressive acts, President Trump may need to rethink his restraint. But his track record to date, including pulling out of the fatally flawed nuclear deal, has earned him the benefit of the doubt.
Harold Hutchison has 15 years of experience covering military issues for multiple outlets.
