Trump’s mood changes bring chaos to Iran war discussions

In what has become a standard use of threats and pullbacks, convicted felon and disgraced U.S. president Donald Trump has backed off his vow to resume attacks against Iran.

Mark Landler and Anton Troianovski report in The New York Times:

In just the past five days, the United States and Iran traded missile strikes after the downing of an American helicopter; Israel bombarded Lebanon, drawing retaliation from Iran; and the Iran-backed Houthis joined the reprisal from Yemen.

Then in a matter of hours on Thursday, President Trump called off another major attack on Iran and again held out the prospect of a peace accord, which Iran downplayed.

In the two months since the U.S. and Iran nominally declared a cease-fire, the line between peace and war has been all but erased across the Middle East, with attacks and counterattacks alongside promises to end the hostilities that never quite materialize. It is less a cease-fire than a “lesser fire,” in the words of the United Nations secretary general, António Guterres.

Even if the combatants manage to get a framework for a deal this time, this gray zone of “neither war nor peace” may persist for weeks or months, analysts and diplomats say. Neither Mr. Trump nor Iran appears ready to make significant concessions in negotiations for a long-term truce, with many devilish details to be worked out — not least over the future of Iran’s nuclear program.

Such a stalemate would consign the Middle East to a purgatory of sporadic violence and constant anxiety. And it would force the rest of the world to confront a stark new economic reality. Long-term disruption of oil and gas shipments would ripple into global supply chains, causing food shortages and driving up prices at the fuel pump and in grocery stores.

“There’s a good chance that the current equilibrium or something like it persists,” said Caitlin Talmadge, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who specializes in Persian Gulf security issues. “Not every war has a clean ending.”

What makes this war particularly messy are its multiple combatants, all with their own, often conflicting, agendas. Mr. Trump, facing midterm elections and political headwinds at home, has signaled he is eager to turn the page. Iran, having suffered fearful casualties, including the death of its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, views this as a war of survival and is unlikely to limit its nuclear program in exchange for short-term respite. And Israel regards Iran as an existential threat — its nuclear facilities buried under rubble but not wiped out, its proxies regrouping in Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen.

“If you get a cease-fire but not a durable peace, you would have to keep a close eye on Iran,” said Charles A. Kupchan, who worked on the National Security Council during the Obama administration. “You could also see continued proxy wars related to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis,” he said, referring to Iran’s allies across the Middle East.

Mr. Kupchan, now a professor of international relations at Georgetown University, likened the challenge for the United States and Israel to “mowing the lawn,” a phrase that refers to the military offensives Israel periodically carried out in Gaza to degrade Hamas before the group carried out its attack on Oct. 7, 2023.

Such a situation is not without precedent in the Middle East. For several years before the American-led war in Iraq, the United States imposed sanctions and enforced no-fly zones on Iraq. Proxy wars flared, and American military installations came under attack, most dramatically in 2000, when the U.S.S. Cole was blown up in a suicide bombing by Al Qaeda terrorists in Aden, Yemen.

What sets this conflict apart from previous ones is the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, in shutting it down, has wielded a devastating new form of leverage, even if it has yet to force Mr. Trump into a peace settlement.

Commercial shipping remains largely suspended. The shooting down of the Apache helicopter, for which the United States blamed Iran, is a reminder of the risks of a plan by the U.S. Navy to help secure the passage of ships through the strait. “This is more a temporary measure than an enduring situation,” said Martin Kelly, the head of advisory at EOS Risk Group, a Britain-based consulting firm.

To make matters worse worldwide, Sarah Kaplan of The Washington Post writes:

In Somalia’s Bay region — once the country’s breadbasket — sorghum and corn fields are withering from lack of rain. Prices for imported rice have surged amid shipping disruptions caused by the conflict in Iran. Farmers are selling off livestock, equipment, even furniture just to afford food. Children are getting as little as half their required calories, a deficit that weakens their immune systems and stunts their growth.

Now meteorologists have declared the arrival of an El Niño event, a climate pattern often accompanied by soaring temperatures and more extreme weather that imperil agriculture in some of the world’s most vulnerable regions.

Experts fear that the event, combined with the high fuel and fertilizer prices triggered by the Iran war, could push parts of the world into a major hunger crisis by the end of this year — one that may trigger political instability and threaten the lives of millions.

“What’s coming toward us, with this economic shock and climate shock at the same time … we are entering uncharted waters,” said Jean-Martin Bauer, director of food security and nutrition analysis at the World Food Program.

In Somalia, the event could bombard the area’s parched soil with too much rain for the ground to absorb. Massive floods could wipe out crops and displace even more people.

By the end of the year, humanitarian groups warn, the country may be facing famine. And it’s not the only region at risk.

A newly released outlook from the U.S. State Department’s Famine Early Warning Systems Network forecast that 115 million to 125 million people in the world’s 26 most vulnerable countries will require urgent food assistance by December. Sudan and South Sudan also face a risk of famine, said Lark Walters, senior food security decision support adviser for the network.

“All of the ingredients for severe to extreme food insecurity impacts are present,” she said.