America’s Retreat Doctrine
The Iranian regime has good reason to string out peace negotiations with the United States. Despite U.S. rhetoric of “peace through strength” and bluster that time is on America's side, Iranians know that Americans have no stomach for protracted wars, that American patience wears thin without quick victories, and that domestic politics will eventually compel Washington to settle for half-measures. To the IRGC and the mullahs in Tehran, Trump's maximalist threats are just theater; his focus on quickly ending the war through negotiations reads as desperation.
The pattern began in Lebanon, with the 1983 Hezbollah suicide bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 17 Americans, and of the Marine barracks, killing 241 American service members. President Reagan ordered the Marines withdrawn within months. Osama bin Laden took notice. In a May 1998 ABC News interview, bin Laden declared:
“This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions… They can run in less than twenty-four hours.”
He added that the youth “realized that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat… dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”
The 1993 “Black Hawk Down” battle in Somalia, which left 18 Americans dead and prompted President Clinton’s pullout, reinforced the lesson. Bin Laden later taunted in his 1996 “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places”:
“You left [Somalia] carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you."
In an interview recalled by journalist Peter Bergen, bin Laden boasted that al-Qaeda-linked fighters had helped Somalis kill “large numbers of American occupation troops,” proving the “weakness, frailty and cowardice of the U.S. troops.”
Bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, drove the point home:
“America does not understand anything except the language of force. Those who inflict damage on America, America tries to negotiate and arrive at an understanding with them.”
To jihadis, these retreats proved America lacks staying power.
Tehran Understands America’s Limits
Iran has tested this lesson for 47 years. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the regime and its proxies have killed Americans with virtual impunity: the 1983 Beirut embassy and barracks bombings, the 1996 Khobar Towers attack, explosively formed penetrators in Iraq, and proxy assaults by Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shiite militias. The U.S. response - sanctions, occasional airstrikes, diplomatic protests- has never included the decisive ground commitment that would impose a prohibitive cost on Tehran.
Even Donald Trump, who prides himself on strength, has pulled punches in exactly the same way. The irony is unmistakable. While Trump has repeatedly denounced NATO as a “paper tiger” that “stayed a little back” from the front lines in Afghanistan and failed to back America in the current Iran conflict, he himself has been unwilling to commit the very boots-on-the-ground force he demands of allies.
Threats Without Ground Commitment
During the countinuing standoff over the Strait of Hormuz, Trump publicly threatened to seize Iran’s Kharg Island - the vital oil-export hub - echoing his own 1988 vow that
“One bullet shot at one of our men or ships, and I’d do a number on Kharg Island. I’d go in and take it.”
Pentagon options for a ground assault were prepared. Trump rejected them, reportedly citing fears that U.S. troops would become “sitting ducks” and that the political cost of casualties would be too high. Airstrikes occurred; boots to seize and hold the island did not.
The same hesitation applied to Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, enough to bring Tehran within striking distance of nuclear weapons. Trump weighed special-operations raids or ground deployments to secure roughly 1,000 pounds of near-weapons-grade material. Briefings were given, options readied. Instead of risking American lives on Iranian soil, the administration turned to negotiations, deadlines, and claims that Iran would hand over “nuclear dust.”
Trump’s other threats followed the same pattern: vows to “obliterate” power plants, bridges, oil wells, and desalination facilities; deadlines to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or “face hell”; rhetoric that “a whole civilization will die.” Some airstrikes followed. The all-out escalation and ground commitment never materialized. Cease-fires and partial concessions took their place.
The current Iranian-U.S. negotiations in Pakistan continue the pattern. Iran's willingness to stay the course meets U.S. eagerness for an exit. If a deal is signed, it will be seen as a compromise by the Americans and a win for the Iranians. If no deal is signed, it will be because the Iranians refuse to give the U.S. enough of a fig leaf.
Lawrence Solomon
Managing Director | Energy Probe Research Foundation
