The overnight exchange of strikes between the US and Iran illustrates the Trump administration's difficulty in shifting the center of gravity from a military campaign to economic pressure, without losing its ability to enforce the rules of the game it seeks to establish in the Strait of Hormuz. The American strike against Iranian launchers in the area of the strait, and the Iranian response in launching missiles toward bases where US forces are stationed in Jordan, do not indicate a decision by Washington to return to a broad campaign at this stage.
From Washington's perspective, the strike aligns with a trend evident in recent weeks: an attempt to scale back the scope of military activity while continuing to use force in a targeted manner when Iran threatens freedom of navigation or the American effort to restore stability to the strait. It seems that the fact that the Iranian response has not caused, for the time being, significant damage will allow the administration to avoid an immediate decision regarding the expansion of the campaign at this stage.
At the same time, the American center of gravity is increasingly shifting to the economic sphere. The Treasury Department recently expanded measures designed to disrupt Iran's ability to trade, transfer funds, and utilize the international financial system. The administration is signaling that additional sanctions, including those targeting banks and entities assisting Tehran in bypassing restrictions, are expected to be published on an ongoing basis. The intention is to gradually deepen the economic cost imposed on Iran, while avoiding as much as possible the need to re-expand the military campaign.
For Trump, this represents an attempt to navigate a fundamental dilemma: on the one hand, he is not interested in being dragged once again into a prolonged war; on the other hand, he cannot afford a situation in which scaling back military activity undermines the US ability to ensure freedom of navigation, or compromises the credibility of its threats. Therefore, the administration is attempting to combine limited and targeted military force with mounting economic pressure, while maintaining maneuvering room that will allow a return to negotiations.
The key test will be in the implementation. The effectiveness of the economic pressure will depend not only on declaring new sanctions, but also on the willingness to enforce secondary sanctions against banks, companies, and countries that continue to maintain ties with Iran—chief among them China, as well as other players in Europe, Turkey, and the Gulf. The overnight exchange of fire demonstrates that even when Washington seeks to move the campaign to an economic track, it is still required to back it up with military capability and a willingness to use it.
The overnight exchange of strikes between the US and Iran illustrates the Trump administration's difficulty in shifting the center of gravity from a military campaign to economic pressure, without losing its ability to enforce the rules of the game it seeks to establish in the Strait of Hormuz. The American strike against Iranian launchers in the area of the strait, and the Iranian response in launching missiles toward bases where US forces are stationed in Jordan, do not indicate a decision by Washington to return to a broad campaign at this stage.
From Washington's perspective, the strike aligns with a trend evident in recent weeks: an attempt to scale back the scope of military activity while continuing to use force in a targeted manner when Iran threatens freedom of navigation or the American effort to restore stability to the strait. It seems that the fact that the Iranian response has not caused, for the time being, significant damage will allow the administration to avoid an immediate decision regarding the expansion of the campaign at this stage.
At the same time, the American center of gravity is increasingly shifting to the economic sphere. The Treasury Department recently expanded measures designed to disrupt Iran's ability to trade, transfer funds, and utilize the international financial system. The administration is signaling that additional sanctions, including those targeting banks and entities assisting Tehran in bypassing restrictions, are expected to be published on an ongoing basis. The intention is to gradually deepen the economic cost imposed on Iran, while avoiding as much as possible the need to re-expand the military campaign.
For Trump, this represents an attempt to navigate a fundamental dilemma: on the one hand, he is not interested in being dragged once again into a prolonged war; on the other hand, he cannot afford a situation in which scaling back military activity undermines the US ability to ensure freedom of navigation, or compromises the credibility of its threats. Therefore, the administration is attempting to combine limited and targeted military force with mounting economic pressure, while maintaining maneuvering room that will allow a return to negotiations.
The key test will be in the implementation. The effectiveness of the economic pressure will depend not only on declaring new sanctions, but also on the willingness to enforce secondary sanctions against banks, companies, and countries that continue to maintain ties with Iran—chief among them China, as well as other players in Europe, Turkey, and the Gulf. The overnight exchange of fire demonstrates that even when Washington seeks to move the campaign to an economic track, it is still required to back it up with military capability and a willingness to use it.