Why Trump is hesitating over returning to bombing Iran

Ever since the bombing phase of Operation Epic Fury ended, President Trump has been threatening to launch a new round of strikes to “annihilate” Iran. His secretary of war has assembled an even bigger armada in the region, including three carrier strike groups, ready to carry out his commander-in-chief’s orders. However, it seems the president is struggling to make up his mind whether a return to bombing would be counter-productive. He has already stated that a second phase of bombing, if he gives the go ahead, will not be until after the congressional midterm elections on November 3. The reasons for his hesitancy are obvious: Iranian retaliatory action caused billions of dollars of damage to US bases in the region and to Gulf state energy plants, destroyed more than 80 American warplanes, forced the US military to use up large stocks of anti-missile interceptors, and persuaded the Pentagon to withdraw 12 long-range B-1 Lancer bombers from RAF Fairford, for fear they were vulnerable to a suspected Iranian plot to attack the base with a swarm of drones. The 81 US aircraft damaged or destroyed, many of them targeted by the IRGC with the assistance of pinpoint satellite intelligence from China and Russia, included 12 F-15 Strike Eagles, nine of them as a result of Iranian fire, two A-10 Thunderbolt ground-attack planes, both hit by IRGC strikes, seven HC-135 Stratotanker air-refuelers, five of them struck in an Iranian attack on an airbase in Saudi Arabia, one E-3 Sentry airborne early-warning aircraft, destroyed on the ground by a direct hit, and 45 MQ-9 Reaper surveillance drones, each costing about $34 million. With the war against Iran having already cost the US more than $43 billion - $1 billion a day at the height of Operation Epic Fury launched on February 28 – Trump and Pete Hegseth, his “warrior” war secretary, are having to calculate whether a return to bombing will have a better chance of dragging the Iranian top brass to the negotiating table for a settlement which the White House could claim as a victory. The omens are not favourable. Despite a total US naval blockade of Iran’s oil exporting ports, crippling the country’s economy, much of the damage caused to Iranian missile and drone launchers and production plants during five months of bombing has been repaired. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has said it is ready to strike back if US bombing is resumed. Meanwhile, the IRGC has not stopped targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrating its determination to threaten the safe passage of oil tankers through the chokepoint, whether Trump bombs again or not. The cost of repairing the targeted bases and replacing the destroyed aircraft will run into billions of dollars, although the Pentagon has not given estimates. In new revised casualty figures, the Pentagon has said 21 service members have so far been killed and 865 wounded. “The damage to bases, munitions shortfalls, especially air and missile defence interceptors, as well as the aircraft losses, are all weighing on the decision-makers, although those concerns would not necessarily be dispositive [the deciding factor],” a former senior US defence official said. “Much will depend on how far the current Iranian escalation in the Gulf and Strait of Hormuz extends - if for instance a US ship was hit with significant casualties - but these factors as well as political calculations will weigh heavily. “The war is extremely unpopular. It started with a low-level of support and Trump has never really made the case for it publicly,” the former official said. The other crucial factor relates to the future of RAF Fairford and other US bases in Europe. The Pentagon is currently engaged in a “Europe force posture” review. The conclusions, expected in December, are likely to result in an expanded reduction in the US military footprint throughout Europe. The aim of the review is for Europe to shoulder the burden of conventional military capabilities, leaving the US to provide the nuclear umbrella. The 12 B-1 bombers were withdrawn from RAF Fairford because the aircraft were sitting ducks at the base, parked out in the open. The US Air Force has estimated it would cost $4.2 billion to upgrade Fairford and the two other bases used by the US in the UK – RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall – including protecting aircraft from drone and missile attack, and building storage facilities for air-launched nuclear bombs. Will the posture review cast doubt on the merits of restructuring RAF Fairford? Will the B-1, B-52 and B-2 bombers, regular visitors, return to the UK? “We will not discuss specific force protection measures but the department will continue to assess the threat environment surrounding our installations and take appropriate actions to protect our people, our platforms and the bases where our forces operate from,” a US war department official told The Times. A US defence source said the bombers might return to RAF Fairford if the security needs demanded it. But the source acknowledged that much would depend on the force posture review’s findings.The former senior US defence official, however, said the withdrawal of the B-1s served a variety of purposes:“a vote of no confidence in force protection there, and raising the possibility of pulling back from the traditional US forward presence in Europe”. “The destruction of bases in the Middle East, terrorist threats, and the refusal by some Nato allies for overflight permission are serving the interests of those in the administration who favour an ‘America First’ emphasis on western hemispheric defence at the expense of maintaining a strong conventional deterrent as part of America's commitments to treaty allies,” the former official said. “They are all too happy to say – ‘we won't rebuild those bases in the Gulf and our aircraft aren't safe in Europe’,” he said.