Maybe I'm Wrong Here. Been Wrong Plenty Before.

A mid-morning thought exercise for the brave new world order we're living in.

I don’t know about you, but I have to remind myself of a few things constantly:

1. The old order as we knew it is regrettably over. It’s been over, in fact. We’re now in the messy middle of a creating a new one. Things are in flux.

2. Because of #1, it’s important to take all legacy mental models about how the world is supposed to work and chuck them out the window before proceeding with analysis. It’s simply not a useful lens through which to understand what’s happening or where things might head.

3. Because of 1 & 2 (and because Trump is a crazy person without morals or principles), anything is theoretically possible. There is simply no more rule book and no template to go off of. All bets are off.

So with all of that firmly in my mind, here are a few observations. What follows is just that. It is my observation, not my judgement. It is analysis and not endorsement. It is a thought exercise and not a prediction. It’s my own attempt to understand the perverse, upside-down and backwards, paradoxically productive way that I think our president thinks.

We probably fail to account for this as much as we should a decade in. At least I do. It’s been pretty clear for a very long time that Donald Trump is a very different sort of fellow than I’m used to watching on television. He also produces different outcomes than I’m used to seeing on television. Some not so good, others that I have written thousands of words about accruing to America’s strategic benefit. There are reasons for both.

Just so we’re crystal clear about it, it has always and will always be the case that his lack of morals, ethics, principles, and respect for the rule of law have prevent me from supporting him. That is a judgement. It is a reflection of my own morals and principles and respect for the rule of law. But as much as I am a committed and unequivocal detractor, I also spend my time focusing on the existential contest America and her allies are in with China. Here, I keep finding myself noticing the results. Hence the needed separation of judgement and analysis. The delineation of ends and means.

In short, I think I’ve just reached a place where I’ve stopped trying to judge harshly and go home. Plenty of folks have that beat covered. And I find myself pondering what we might be overlooking and what unanticipated changes he might produce. I’ve simply seen it happen to many times.

The way Donald Trump thinks isn’t just something to approve or disapprove of, in other words, it’s something to try and understand. It’s something critically important to incorporate into one’s own analysis and understanding of what’s happening and therefore also what might happen. I struggle here, as I think most observers, voters, and practitioners do. In short, it’s not just that what he thinks is offensive, it’s that it’s also… different. Fundamentally different.

So instead of recounting the many reasons why I wish it weren’t the case that he’s president of the United Staes, I’m going to spend a few minutes instead trying to think through what that reality actually might mean vis-a-vis Iran. As mentioned above, I don’t think our normal mental models or frameworks for analysis are relevant or helpful here. Because one of the only two participants who matter here doesn’t think like we do. He thinks… differently.

To start my own reframed line of analysis, here are a few broad predicates and observations about the world that I see before me. Some related to Trump specifically, some not:

First off, the single thing I am most proud of about the United States of America is that in so many cases, our bitterest enemies have indeed ended up becoming our closest friends and allies. So that’s possible. Often quite quickly. We tend to forget that. The UK, Germany, Japan and even Vietnam are all important, world-changing examples of this. The Marshall Plan perhaps our finest moment. It truly changed the world in ways that will reverberate for centuries.

In the specific case of Germany and Japan, it’s hard to overstate how bitter the enmity was. Nevertheless, much was done by the United States government in an earnest effort to rebuild, to forgive, and to welcome these mighty and proud nations back into the fold. America doesn’t get enough credit for that, in my view. We spend 99.9% of our time focusing on all the failures (perhaps understandably, there have been a few). Afghanistan, Russia, China, etc. But the successes in our strategic relationship building were also pretty darn world changing too. So that’s number one.

It has long been my observation that Donald Trump - owing to the fact that he has no morals or scruples of his own - does not care or think about things like regime change in the way that the rest of us do. That is to say, it’s not a legal structure or historical structure he’s focused on. Nor are human rights records a precursor to close collaboration. He cares instead about regime behavior change. That’s what regime change means to him. I think we all (and I include myself here) struggle to remember that this difference opens policy doors that we would never really even consider. But these policy doors do exist in the realm of the possible and the plausible if one sees the world as he does. That we don’t ponder this more is our fault and our own habit. Even with the fresh example of Venezuela in mind and talking about it here, we still can’t really see it, I don’t think. At least I can’t.

As noted above, this failure is part and parcel of an intellectual framework that we use to understand the very world around us. It’s part of who we are, how we understand ourselves, how we think about adversaries, etc. But it’s simply not how he thinks. How he keeps score. And thus, at this particular juncture in history, it’s perhaps not a particularly useful framework for assessing the world we now find ourselves in. He’s the one shaping it. He’s the one interacting with it. Not us. Not the pundits. Not the pollsters. Not the press. If precedent doesn’t matter to him, then we shouldn’t look at the existence of a precedent as view it as a constraint on the possible. It is not.

The third observation I would make, related to the second, is that whenever our adversary is willing to do things that we are not, it creates a structural disadvantage. The most relevant example of this to me are the many countries in the world that are useful partners of Russia and China. They’ve gone this route in most cases for no other reason that we are a threat to their hold on power (or at best a nuisance), whereas our adversaries are not. Our adversaries are an opportunity. We, traditionally, are not. But Trump changes this too. He doesn’t care what they do or how they do it. He cares about something else.

Again, not a moral judgement here. Simply an observation. Morally, ethically, and legally, I agree with the way we traditionally see the world. But I must remind readers, Donald Trump does not agree with this and his worldview drives the bus, not mine. Again, can’t emphasize this enough - simply an observation, not an endorsement.

And what follows from here is not a prediction based on this different way of seeing the world, but it is in part speculation about how I think he thinks about Iran, Hormuz, and his place in the world. It’s an examination of what that crucial difference in thought process makes possible. It’s an attempt to point to one of our own analytical blind spots.

This is part thought-exercise based on lived history and partly a thought exercise based on what I understand to be the primary interests for two parties, neither of whom care one bit about a world order or set of rules that we all operate under. They are unusually and mutually unconstrained by it.

The fourth observation is that autocratic regimes have one goal that supersedes all others - including ideology - and that is regime survival.

So with these concepts taken together as a premise and established as a framework for analysis, I’m going to try to think like he thinks. I’m going to try to see the world and this predicament as he sees it.

First, Trump’s regime is in a bit of domestic political and geopolitical trouble. The headlines aren’t good. He needs a win. A big win.

The Iranian regime is also in domestic and geopolitical trouble. They’re both isolated. Both running out of leverage. They both need a win.

Escalation isn’t really in either’s immediate or intermediate interest. Neither wants to look like a loser. For these reasons, it’s a bit of a stalemate (and I think more of a strategic stalemate than the media narrative suggests for reasons I’ve described previously). In either case, it’s costing both sides a lot, strategically and tactically. Their people aren’t happy. Partners and allies aren’t happy. Nobody is happy. And it will take some creativity and flexibility to find a way out. That’s pretty clear because every pundit and their brother will tell you the two sides are far apart and there’s no obvious way out.

But I digress.

Both regimes also want revenue. One side desperately needs it. The other side measures his pride by it, which is another way of saying he desperately needs it.

They both want power and influence for its own sake, but even more than that, both sides want the projection and demonstration of power on the world’s stage. A stalemate is something normal politicians settle for and move on. They think in terms of limiting reputational damage. These are not normal politicians.

Also of note, in my view, is that the incapacitation and absence of a Supreme Leader creates a break in the chain of command leading, in turn, to the IRGC’s apparent control over the levers of power (including foreign policy). This absence is also indicative perhaps of a shift in the emphasis of the religion-first aspect of revolutionary narrative (and a source of legitimacy that is also different from the role of the supreme leader). The Supreme Leader is a cleric and religious leader. The IRGC is not. Moreover, as scholars have noted, the hereditary succession from father to son was not at all in keeping with Shia ideals and theory, nor are his credentials as a religious scholar particularly up to snuff. Finally and most importantly, if the religious element of the revolution was to see Iran emerge as a uniter and leader of the Muslim world, that has failed spectacularly. Controlling the Strait of Hormuz and bombing muslim countries to do it does not help. So in ways that matter, we are dealing with a different system right now and perhaps also a moment in time where a pivot to a different revolutionary narrative emphasis is appropriate and useful for the regime itself.

So assuming that reporting and analysis is correct and it is truly the IRGC (and closely affiliated forces) that is running the show now, then there are some things to consider about subtle but important ways in which they also may think, operate, and derive legitimacy in a way that’s different than we’re used to. What do I mean? Well, while certainly fervent nationalists, the IRGC leadership is also corrupt. At least by reputation. The troops are paid in worthless money. Morale, as one understands it from insiders, was not at an all-time high coming into this war. Per one of the founders of the IRGC, this corruption paired with economic strife has been a real sore spot for the rank and file. And who could really blame them? Think of how we feel!

In any event, it would be helpful to be able to throw a bone there. They need a real win. They need a new direction.

We also know that the regime is fearful enough of the people right now that has resorted to mass murder to put unrest down. That unrest is no longer siloed interests. It is society-wide. The regime has no economic answers and without a religious figurehead to fall back on, this amps the pressure even more to address the secular failures of the regime - a systemic question for which they have no answers. And in fact, in addition to all the kit they’ll have to rebuy, the regime may get some revenue managing the toll booth, but they also just lost some vitally important financial connections with the UAE too. This hurts at every level that matters for the IRGC leadership. A wash doesn’t help here. It doesn’t move the needle.

So this is all floating around aimlessly in the back of my head. Like everybody, I’m trying to suss out how this thing turns out. Then this morning I wake up to a tweet from Mr. Trump saying that the US and Iran would be going in to retrieve the uranium together. Perhaps that’s true, perhaps it’s a bald-faced lie. I have no idea. Very hard to say with a man who lies seven times before breakfast.

But if it is true, then wow. This signals a pretty historic and potentially watershed breakthrough. Cooperation between the US and IRGC is… different. I don’t care what the context is.

So I put this new conceptual possibility in the ol’ mental mixing bowl and I’m thinking about Venezuela, and I’m thinking about how differently Trump sees the world and normal ways of doing things, and I’m wondering to myself: what does Trump see here? Why would the regime go for this? What are both sides playing at? Where is the out? Where is the win? What do they want? What do they need? What changes the game entirely?

In short, how does this whole problem set look through Trump’s profoundly different eyes from the rest of us? How is it different from my own way of seeing Iran? What is he looking at that we aren’t? What does he care about that we don’t?

And just like that, it’s obvious. He’s not a deep thinker perhaps, but he is a thinker. And there’s no deep answer here. But there is an answer. It seems pretty clear to me that one simple solution to everybody’s problem is they just go into business together. Is it crazy? Sure, but so are they. Everybody hates them and they hate everybody right back. They both share a mutual disdain for the world order. They’re both outcasts from it. Why not share in the spoils of their disdain and outcast position too?

It’s good for Trump. It’s good for Iran.

It’s the Venezuela solution he’s been after all along. That’s what it looks like. In Venezuela it’s the stock. In Hormuz, it’s the flow. Was this the plan all along? I highly doubt it, but he’s flexible. A toll booth popped up and everybody said that’s unaccetable. Trump saw the toll booth and said “I want in”.

There’s no interagency process here that needs to analyze this stuff for eighteen months. There’s no consulting with allies. He can just float it. He can pivot. He can give. And this is precisely the trap I think we’ve all fallen into in our old ways of thinking about these problems. True of the trade war. True of Panama. True of NATO spending. True of Venezuela. Why do we think his approach to Iran is going to look like the half dozen presidents who preceded him? He doesn’t think like they do. He doesn’t see how they see.

When we say “regime change”, we’re seeing and thinking through our own normal, rules based order sense. He doesn’t. Regime change for us means the people are free. The government is a thriving jeffersonian democracy. He resents democracy. Why would he kill himself trying to go create another one? That’s not what regime change means to him. Regime change for him is regime behavior change. It’s the realignment of interests from somebody else towards him. There is no moral or legal component to it because those are things that matter to us. These are things we think and care about. They are not things he thinks or cares about.

So my own - admittedly very speculative sense - is that we may see a proposal where Iran and the United States decide to operate the “toll booth” as a joint venture. Junior and senior partners. Everybody else can take their bellyaching and eat it. It’s a new world order and the rest of you people are just living in it. Instead of being put down by the US or controlled and boxed in by the US, Iran is liberated by it. Legitimized by it. Equalized by it. Iran doesn’t need protection (except perhaps from Israel). What Iran really needs is a way out. It needs a way off the 50 year old failure of a merry-go-round.

I think what people are missing is that control over the Strait doesn’t give them that. They’re still a pariah. Still stuck. Still isolated. Still vulnerable to pressure from the whole globe. Still (inevitably) sanction-prone. The tolls may buy time, it may buy coercive leverage, it may buy some local bragging rights, but it doesn’t buy true autonomy. It doesn’t buy true dominance. It won’t last. Every cargo that gets rerouted, every new missile defense system and anti-drone tech that’s installed just weakens it again. Iran is as strong today as it will ever be if nothing changes. They just have to sell it. To each other. Trump will do the rest.

And for his part, Trump has no problem selling it as a way for the world to help underwrite the massive US defense expenditure that the world enjoys without every paying for.

For it’s part, Iran gets to say it has its supremacy and control over the Strait and also the same diplomatic clout and reach as its rivals and neighbors across the water. And a huge signing bonus to boot.

Is this a radical departure from international law, norms, and a break with the widely understood way of doing things in the world order that we’re all so used to? Absolutely. It unquestionably is. Is it a completely different way of thinking about history and grievances? Sure. But Trump unquestionably doesn’t care! We do! And because he doesn’t care about precedent or norms or rules, he isn’t meaningfully constrained by these things in a power sense either.

To be clear, the Israelis won’t like this. The GCC won’t like this. The Europeans and Asian allied nations won’t like this. The global south won’t like this. China won’t like this. The Wall Street Journal and the Economist and the FT won’t like this.

He. Doesn’t. Care.

Who is going to stop him and how?

The truth is, none of us like instability and endless wars. We espeically don’t like wars that crash the global economy. Are we going to go back to that over a precedent? Is that the hill the global economy dies on? I doubt it.

And not for nothing, if Iran can be brought into the fold, the region materially stabilized, and the cost is a broken precedent about international waterways being public goods… well, I don’t know friends. Maybe there’s a way to bring the GCC along. I reckon that’s a consideration for another day. And this is as good an example as any of how people are 100% right in their assessment of him. He doesn’t care about the long-term consequences. Probably hasn’t even crossed his mind. He cares about the here and now. And to him, I reckon this looks good and feels good in the here and now. Ditto for the IRGC.

The way I look at it, and I reckon how at least a few folks on the regime’s side might look at it: in addition to the toll revenue, Iran gets the sanctions lifted and assets unfrozen. No small change. Oil & gas production increases, maybe investment comes in. But the US is now an equal. They won the revolution. They showed the Great Satan how powerful they are. The US has relented. The sanctions are coming off. Etc Etc.

The other thing to ponder is that China doesn’t have allies. It doesn’t come to other countries’ aid. It didn’t protect the Ayatollah or anything else. In fact, China has encouraged Iran to stand down because (as noted previously, counter to consensus) this war does not benefit China’s core interests. It harms them.

In any event, as we’ve seen time and again, countries that align themselves with China are both isolated and left wanting. China can help get around global sanctions, but it can’t impose them or turn them off at will. That would be the other superpower. The one who wants to get into business with you.

Who knows, friends? It’s a thought experiment. It is a solution to an immediate problem and one I wasn’t thinking about. The regime probably wasn’t either. But it’s a solution. It’s a win. It helps them where they need it most. They can throw the people billions of bones, keep plenty for themselves, and it can be seen as a viable path to long-term survival. Literally and figuratively. The biggest foreign threat turned into a partner overnight.

If we first chuck out everything we think we know and understand about how the world works out of the window, it’s plausible. Absurd, but plausible. I have to keep reminding myself that absurd is the world we’re living in right now.

Earlier this morning, I was busily typing a rehashing of all my legacy complaints with Iran. Why? Does Trump care? No.

And while we’re at it, do I ever find myself doing that with the Germans, Japanese, or British? No, I don’t. Well, perhaps sometimes the British but only because I love to rib big brother a bit. The Fourth is my favorite holiday, not for nothing.

But my bigger point is hatchets can indeed get buried. Ideological fervor can indeed run its course. It can shift often from simple exhaustion. Is that pretty rare in this sort of circumstance? Sure. But Trump is pretty rare too, thank heavens.

End of the day, there’s a misperception, I believe, that Trump doesn’t think at all. I think a better description is that Donald Trump simply doesn’t think like the rest of us do. It’s true in many, many ways.

We all look at crisis and chaos as clear evidence that something has gone wrong and needs immediate fixing. We are averse to chaos. He is not. He loves it. He cultivates it. This is a completely different emotional relationship with the world than the one we all understand and share. We see the flouting of norms as something to be avoided at all costs. He sees it as an amusement. It’s not a hindrance or a constraint for him. Only for us.

We have morals and social codes that constrain and shape us. He does not. We have a respect for norms and precedents. He does not. We tend to be wedded to our views. He is not. One minute Lil Marco is a punching bag and the next he’s the chief advisor. Who knows where he’ll be tomorrow? Trump doesn’t even know. And he doesn’t care. One could go on and on. My point has long been that for an idiot who can’t think at all, he’s managed to pull off a lot - not least of which is getting himself elected president twice. Does he think very differently? Yes. Not think at all? That’s maybe TDS.

Again, in closing, this isn’t an endorsement. This isn’t a moral judgement. I would need a long time to think through all the implications and run it through the interagency process and consult with allies and run it by the attorneys, etc. Trump can just do it.

I can’t emphasize that difference enough. This not a legal analysis. It’s not an endorsement. It’s not a strategy document. It’s not a thesis. It’s simply an observation. It’s how I think he thinks.

And to some degree, knowing the pretty dire, trapped, and isolated situation the IRGC finds itself in (contrary to popular narrative), it’s not hard for me to imagine they could see their way into thinking like this too. The windfall is massive. The revenue starts tomorrow. The revolution can be won. The United States has been forced to recognize blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Trump doesn’t care.

What matters to Trump is that from his perspective, the rest of the world will have been forced to recognize America’s own supremacy and position of power. What matters to the IRGC is the same. His position of supremacy and position of power. Their position of supremacy and power. He did what nobody else could do. So did the regime. And now he gets a cut of every dollar coming out of the Gulf. So do they. If you don’t think he can spin that in his own mind as a huge win, you haven’t been watching him.

The rest of us wouldn’t think this way. But that’s irrelevant. My own bet is Trump does. The only thing left to figure out is how to put his name brand on it.