Looks Like Iran May Be Done Playing Games With The United States

 

My take is that President Trump is more upset that he can't spin the war the way he wants than anything else. He can't just walk away (Iran is in a better position than they were before the conflict started), he can't keep fighting (see Ben Norton's reasons for the pause), and he can't make a deal with Iran because of Israel. 

And while I understand that the Policy Papers are still considered a geopolitical blueprint and relatively independent of whoever's in the White House, Trump's ego, insecurity, ignorance and arrogance will only allow him to be perceived as the sole person deserving all the credit for any kind of success. Sure, his donors own him, but they're not likely to claim political victories (at least to the media), so it doesn't matter much when they give him marching orders. But to give credit to any previous administration for something that happens under his term is a different matter. The agencies can quote chapters and sections until they are blue in the face, but it's been revealed that Trump responds best to one-page documents (that includes his name) and videos of explosions. To wit, asking Google which tenants the Trump White House is following provided this as a response:

The current White House under Donald Trump is actively executing a hybrid strategy that simultaneously utilizes two of the distinct paths outlined in Which Path to Persia?: Path 2 (U.S. Airstrikes) and Path 1 (Traditional Diplomacy). [1, 2, 3]

Rather than selecting a single path, current U.S. policy alternates between high-intensity military coercion and direct diplomatic engagement. [1, 2]

1. The Military Option: Path 2 (U.S. Airstrikes)

The 2009 book analyzed "Path 2" as a campaign of surgical U.S. airstrikes aimed at destroying Iran's infrastructure, neutralizing its command structure, and degrading its retaliatory capabilities.

• The Reality: This path materialized directly when U.S. and Israeli forces launched massive joint strikes targeting Iranian missiles, air defenses, and leadership. [1]
• The Strategic Fit: The strikes mirrored the exact objectives laid out in Path 2—attempting to force Iran to the negotiating table by decisively demonstrating overwhelming military superiority. [1, 2]

2. The Diplomatic Option: Path 1 (Traditional Diplomacy)

"Path 1" in the Brookings report detailed a strategy of direct diplomatic persuasion, offering significant positive incentives in exchange for verifiable concessions on Iran's nuclear and regional behavior.

• The Reality: Following the military escalation, the White House pivoted back to diplomacy. The administration negotiated the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which established a 60-day window for comprehensive talks. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• The Strategic Fit: To incentivize Iran, the administration utilized the exact mechanisms of Path 1: offering a multi-billion dollar reconstruction fund, lifting economic blockades, and opening avenues for oil sales in exchange for a commitment to halt nuclear weapon development. [1, 2]

3. The Rejection of Other Paths

The White House has conspicuously avoided several other strategies proposed in the 2009 text:

• Path 3 (Full Invasion): The administration has consistently avoided a large-scale land invasion or formal regime change via U.S. ground troops, preferring to rely on economic and air power.
• Paths 6, 7, and 8 (Regime Change): While recent strikes severely disrupted Iran's top leadership, current U.S. actions focus on altering state behavior and securing shipping lanes rather than attempting to foster a popular uprising or backing a domestic coup.
• Path 9 (Containment): The White House has rejected a passive containment posture. Instead of accepting a nuclear Iran and deterring it from afar, the U.S. is employing active coercion, stepping up regional defense spending, and distributing advanced military tech to Gulf partners like Saudi Arabia and the UAE to aggressively isolate Tehran. [1, 2, 3, 5]

Iran's domination of the Strait of Hormuz has all but negated Containment. Regime Change was technically the first move that the US/Israel made, and as Ben Norton noted, it did not work nor did it fracture Iran socially, militarily, or politically (hence the desperation). As for the Full Invasion: while Iran wants the United States to send in ground troops, but there aren't any real sane military experts who believe that this would be a good idea. Will any of this change? Time will tell, but there's not much of it left.