US President Donald Trump, who is struggling to find an ‘honourable’ exit from the complex situation resulting from the war waged against Iran alongside Israel, continues to make repeated mistakes.
When writing about Trump’s current predicament, international military and political observers make several historical comparisons. There is a long list of failures regarding American wars of aggression, including the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, and the war in Afghanistan.
However, the comparisons being drawn between Trump and former President Richard Nixon – as well as the parallel between the current crisis America faces in the Strait of Hormuz and the defeat Britain suffered during the 1956 Suez crisis – deserve special attention.
Observers, critiquing Trump’s frequently contradictory announcements and his threat to destroy Iranian civilisation overnight beyond recovery, recall the Madman Theory employed by Nixon. They note that elements of the same tactics Nixon used during the Vietnam War are visible in Trump’s threats against Iran, but they warn that Trump should consider the eventual fate that Nixon met.
Madman Theory
The Madman Theory is a diplomatic approach where a leader creates doubt about his mental stability in the minds of his enemies to frighten them into submission and favourable agreements.
The origin of this theory was detailed by Irish investigative journalist and author Anthony Summers in his 2000 book ‘The Arrogance of Power’. Robert Tait, the Washington correspondent for The Guardian, quoted from Summers’ book in an article recently regarding Trump’s approach to the Iran conflict.
Summers wrote that in 1968, even before becoming President, Nixon explained his ‘madman’ idea to his future White House Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman during a walk along the Pacific coast.
“I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communists. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry – and he has his hand on the nuclear button’ – and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two weeks begging for peace.”
In the following years, Nixon employed this tactic several times. He instructed his aides to go to Soviet officials and tell them that their leader was somewhat ‘mad’ and capable of brutal actions. However, some of Nixon’s aides felt they didn’t need to fabricate anything; they realised he truly was that way.
Despite Nixon’s ‘madman’ posturing, the Vietnam War was still raging in 1972. At that time, Nixon told his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger that he wanted to use nuclear weapons against communist North Vietnam.
When Kissinger warned that such a move would be dangerous, Nixon mocked him for being too worried about civilians. Summers’ book records that the psychiatrist who treated Nixon for over 40 years expressed concern that the latter might not be the right man to have his finger on the American nuclear trigger.
Trump has been carrying out devastating bombings to force the Iranians to submit to his conditions, much like Nixon conducted bombings to destroy infrastructure and bring the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table.
Nixon may have caused immense destruction in Vietnam, but he could not defeat the communists in the war. Ultimately, the communists overcame American aggression and liberated Vietnam in April 1975. The historic image of Americans escaping by hanging onto helicopters as the communists advanced still flickers before our eyes. Trump, who is fascinated by Nixon, should reflect on the fate that befell Nixon’s tactics.
Failed negotiations
After threatening to end Iranian civilisation and push the country back to the Stone Age, Trump withdrew from his decision via a social media post and agreed to a ceasefire just an hour and a half before his own deadline expired.
Last Sunday (12), 21 hours of direct negotiations between the United States and Iran in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, ended in failure without any agreement. There was a massive gap between the positions of the two sides.
While American officials claim the negotiations failed because Iran is unwilling to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, the Iranians maintain they are not ready to give up their right to engage in nuclear programmes for peaceful purposes.
Observers suggest that Trump’s predicament stems from his underestimation of Iran’s resilience – a nation that endured a prolonged war with Iraq in the late 20th century despite massive casualties and destruction.
Iran, which was largely unable to bargain during the pre-war negotiations, has gained enough diplomatic leverage after a month and a half of war to put forward its own competing conditions. By regionalising the conflict and closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has achieved a major tactical victory by dragging the global economy into the war.
Comparison with Suez Crisis
Following the failure of the Islamabad talks, the US announced last Sunday that it had begun operations to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Washington’s objective is to prevent Iran from exporting oil and importing goods through this narrow waterway.
Shipping through this strait, which carries 5% of the world’s oil needs, has dropped drastically since the war began. For over a month, while the strait remained closed, Iran allowed its own vessels and a few others to pass through. Realising the rising global resentment against him due to soaring oil prices, Trump did not initially block those movements.
However, experts now cast doubt on the potential success of the US move to block ships from departing or entering Iranian ports and coasts. Regardless, Trump’s order has set the stage for a new test in the war. The critical question remains as to which side can endure the most economic pain and for how long.
It is true that America’s military strength and technological prowess are unparalleled. It is said that the US defence budget is equivalent to the combined defence budgets of the next eight largest allied nations.
However, despite causing such massive destruction and spending billions of dollars, American power has yet to secure a victory in Iran. Even after a significant portion of Iran’s political and military leadership has been decimated, a leadership structure continues to function and guide the country.
The current attempts by the US to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz raise questions about whether history will repeat itself, bringing the US to a position similar to that of Britain after its 1956 invasion during the Suez Crisis – a moment when Britain’s global status was forever altered.
Since the Suez Canal was constructed in 1869, it was owned by a joint British-French enterprise (the Suez Canal Company). On 26 July 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced the nationalisation of the company, bringing the canal under his country’s control.
Infuriated by the nationalisation of a canal that held immense commercial and strategic importance for Britain, Anthony Eden, the British Prime Minister at the time, stated that the Egyptian President could not be allowed to have “his thumb on our windpipe”. Nasser reportedly responded defiantly, saying that if Britain and France did not like what he had done, they could “choke on their own rage”.
The subsequent invasion launched by Britain, France, and Israel to recapture the canal and oust Nasser from power led to the Suez Crisis. During this crisis, the canal remained closed from October 1956 to March 1957.
As a result of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s intervention and heavy pressure from the US, British, French, and Israeli troops were quickly withdrawn and the canal was placed under the control of United Nations (UN) forces. Eden resigned as Prime Minister. Nasser emerged from the crisis as a victor and was hailed as a hero of Arab and Egyptian nationalism.
With the support of the US and UN, Egypt maintained its control over the Suez Canal. This event brought the decline of British dominance in the Middle East into sharp focus.
Will the United States suffer a fate similar to Britain’s inability to impose its will in the Middle East through major military action during the Suez Crisis as a result of Trump’s erratic approaches to the current Hormuz crisis?
(The writer is a senior journalist based in Colombo)
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)