Why the U.S. is Currently Unwilling and Unable to Go to War Against Iran?

Donald Trump's unexpected visit to American troops stationed in Iraq during the Christmas season, just days after the announcement of the arrival of the American military fleet in the Persian Gulf led by the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, is not necessarily a sign of escalating tensions in the region or increased readiness for war against Iran. The tradition of U.S. presidents visiting American military forces stationed abroad, accompanied by popular artists, has been followed since World War II. While the strengthening of the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf may neutralize doubts expressed about Washington's commitment to maintaining a military presence in the Middle East after the recent withdrawal of two thousand U.S. troops from Syria, it will not go beyond this point. The absence of a plan for a full-scale war against the Islamic Republic does not indicate that the U.S. is unprepared to counter potential hostile actions by the Islamic Republic in the region. Hassan Rouhani's government is undergoing a slow political transformation that began after the imposition of new sanctions and the declaration of an economic war by the U.S., gradually leaning to the right to avoid isolation within the regime. Recent statements by Zarif regarding the 'elimination of Israel,' which were later moderated with explanations, and Rouhani's threat on December 24 to close the Strait of Hormuz if Iran's oil export routes were blocked, indicate existing tensions in the region, but the current level of tension is not at a point of military confrontation or war readiness. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps recently conducted a naval exercise in the Persian Gulf, which, alongside showcasing capabilities, did not go unnoticed by observers. Trump is not a war hawk; many of his close associates over the past two years have been senior military personnel. However, warmongering is not in Trump's nature. As a businessman, Trump believes that trade can only thrive in conditions of stability and continuity, not in the turmoil and instability caused by war. Trade and economics require management and discipline, which the U.S. President seeks in the presence of prominent military personnel. The current U.S. President is not a product of Washington's political system and lacks previous elected office or executive experience in government circles, which may explain why he relies more on retired military personnel than any president since World War II. At the same time, Trump is familiar with the principle of competition, and his enjoyment of winning, especially on a national level for his country, is understandable like any other conventional head of state. Before being elected as the 45th President of the United States, Trump expressed his opposition to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and military presence in Syria, criticizing the expenditure of 'seven trillion dollars on Middle Eastern wars with no benefit,' and he has criticized NATO member countries for insufficient contributions to their defense costs (equivalent to two percent of GDP) while emphasizing to Japan and South Korea that they must pay for the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Trump is not inclined towards war because he does not believe in it, but one cannot expect that in defense of national interests and the borders of his country, he would not consider utilizing all available resources, including military equipment. Perhaps to demonstrate this will, he sends the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis, a Nimitz-class carrier with 90 modern fighter jets and over 6,500 crew members, to the Persian Gulf simultaneously with the announcement of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, which alone has more firepower than the air force of a medium-sized country. Regardless of his lack of inclination, the current U.S. government is currently unable to initiate a full-scale war against Iran because Iran is a large country, and its military occupation would require a force of at least half a million personnel. Even a limited military attack against Iran would require justification and legal rationale, as well as the formation of a global coalition, at least regionally, which the U.S. government currently lacks. Europe has not yet separated from the Islamic Republic, and Russia and China politically support the Islamic Republic. Regional countries, especially the Arab states along the southern shore of the Persian Gulf, are aware of the missile capabilities at the disposal of the Islamic Republic and their own vulnerabilities, and they do not welcome a U.S. war against Iran. Compared to the enormous costs of a hot war, continuing the economic war, imposing sanctions, and the continuation and intensification of the cold war against the Islamic Republic is much less costly and has effectively weakened the other side without incurring casualties on one side of the conflict. In December 1941, the then Japanese ambassador to Washington issued a statement warning that 'if the U.S. continues the port blockade and the embargo on oil and fuel deliveries to Japan, for his country, war would be a preferable option over surrendering to pressure.' Five days later, the Japanese Air Force carried out suicide attacks on Pearl Harbor, resulting in over 2,400 American deaths, and subsequently, the U.S. entered World War II directly. The outcome of the U.S. entry into the war was clear, and Japan surrendered after the explosion of two atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. While comparing the military capabilities of the U.S. and the Islamic Republic is not difficult, especially by comparing the firepower of three fifty-year-old T-60 Russian tanks on the wooden deck of a private boat in the Persian Gulf with the Stennis aircraft carrier, the Tehran government stands with a stone in hand against the glass houses of the southern Gulf residents and is capable of breaking glass. Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic is neither inclined nor able to start a war in the current situation, and the leaders of the Tehran government know well that if a direct war begins, even against America's regional allies, it will undoubtedly lead to their end. European countries have so far sold this argument to the Trump administration to avoid complete isolation of the Islamic Republic and allow for limited oil exports from Iran, distancing from the goal of 'zero exports' resulting from such an agreement. The Islamic Republic is currently not at risk of foreign military invasion, and despite the noticeable rightward shift of Rouhani's government and the intensification of slogans, the regime's isolation is not at a level that would abandon the policy of maintaining the status quo and waiting for a chance for 'respectful negotiations' and a dignified surrender, engaging in actions similar to Japan's military suicide in World War II.