Trending
The History Channel's recounting of World War II, narrated by Tom Hanks, includes the history of Operation Overlord, the massive D-Day invasion of occupied France. This invasion was a magnificent coalition of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, the French Resistance, and many other nations. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower's masterful management of this coalition enabled the success of history's greatest amphibious invasion.
Why this recent history was not carefully studied before America and Israel launched the Iran War is a mystery. An even greater mystery is why it is apparently not being studied and emulated now. The go-it-alone strategy has left America stuck in an unpopular war. Iran relishes trying to embarrass America's president, whom the mullahs perceive as feckless, with an indefinite off-and-on tit-for-tat of aerial bombings that keep the critical international waterway of the Strait of Hormuz closed and damage the world's and America's economies.
America's air campaign and blockade alone are insufficient to meet the strategic goals of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, destroying Iran's missile capacity, and ending Iran's support for proxies.
Unfortunately, American leaders have so far been too pig-headed to figure out how to end this war. There may be a way.
Here is how it might be done. First, many of the nations that joined in D-Day are vitally interested in seeing that the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait remain open international waterways. The former appears to be indefinitely closed or subject to Iranian tolls; Iran threatens the latter through its Houthi proxies.
These other nations also likely do not want to see Iran develop a nuclear bomb and the missile capacity to deliver it anywhere. America's foolhardy go-it-alone strategy has led to Iran endangering these other nations' vital national interests.
With apologies and hat-in-hand, and behind the scenes, American diplomats should be feeling these nations out about a possible grand coalition, like that assembled for D-Day, that will confront Iran with the threat and willingness to invade Iran with a massive coalition of ground troops, air power, sea power, economic power and cyber-power unless Iran accepts the allies' terms.
Second, the coalition will understand that massive amphibious and airborne landings to secure the Strait of Hormuz, Kharg Island, potentially Houthi Yemen, and, yes, if necessary, to march on Tehran, will be needed if the threat of this does not secure Iran's satisfactory capitulation.
The coalition would also need to understand that America's participation depends on advance congressional approval. If many of these nations, most notably Great Britain, France, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Australia and Turkey, are willing to join such a coalition, the president should quietly discuss with congressional leaders the coalition that can be assembled, strategy for using the threat of the coalition to try to secure diplomatic aims before the attack, the aims to be achieved, generally how the coalition will attack Iran if diplomacy fails, timing, and the anticipated cost in blood and treasure.
Third, if congressional leaders are convinced that this is the best strategy to bring this unfortunate "forever" war to an end, the American public should promptly be educated on the results of America's coalition building. Then the president should ask Congress for a Declaration of War against Iran, with great clarity about the coalition and how it will proceed. He could state that the first move would be to assemble multiple allies' naval and ground forces, including hospital ships, near Iran in plain view; then give Iran a clear ultimatum and timeline to reach an acceptable peace treaty; and, if diplomacy fails, proceed with an attack reminiscent of D-Day.
The threat of this massive power should be a great bargaining tool for reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. The coalition will need a military leader of Eisenhower's caliber.
If after a well-crafted and convincing public case is made and fully debated, Congress and the American public still reject a Declaration of War, the nation will have, for better or worse, spoken. Congress should then defund and stop America's tit-for-tat bombing and demand the withdrawal of our engaged air and naval forces.
It will be left up to the other vitally interested nations to decide whether they will see to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, protect Bab el-Mandeb, and stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. America should still support them with economic sanctions on Iran, with arms sales, and intelligence sharing. They will no doubt bemoan America's lack of full participation in an attack against Iran, but they will have been informed in advance that congressional approval was a condition of America's full participation.
Will the United States try a strategy like this to bring Iran's pariah regime to heel?
Regrettably, probably not with our current leadership.
Daniel O. Jamison is a retired attorney who writes on military affairs and other issues. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.