NYT: Sanctions Unlikely to Subdue Iran... Trump Engaged in a 'Phony War'

Amid the war with Iran surpassing six months, U.S. media outlets have assessed that the initial objectives have not been achieved and that bringing the conflict to a close through economic pressure campaigns remains a distant prospect.

Concerns have also been raised that U.S. President Donald Trump, eyeing the upcoming midterm elections in November, has entered a sort of "phony war" phase by tightening sanctions, but that this ultimately creates a dangerous situation where a spike in military tension is inevitable.

Worry has also emerged that a broader crisis could be triggered beyond the Middle East.

In an article assessing the six-month mark of the war with Iran on the 28th local time, the U.S. daily The New York Times (NYT) pointed out that the Iranian regime remains resilient and U.S. objectives have not been met, noting that President Trump's economic pressure on Iran may only cause the Iranian people to starve further without changing the regime's strategy.

The NYT analyzed that the current situation is relatively stable—with the U.S. and Iran not firing at each other and the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz remaining relatively loose—describing it as "akin to a phony war."

The campaign of economic pressure offers the advantages of being gradual and difficult to monitor, which helps de-escalate tensions and allows leaders to project the message that victory is just around the corner.

The NYT assessed that this strategy is helpful for President Trump and the Republican Party, who must prevent a defeat in the November midterms without finding an exit strategy from the war with Iran.

Jeremy Shapiro, a former U.S. State Department official, told the NYT, "Tightening economic sanctions against Iran is a way to pretend to have won, or to pretend that you are still fighting instead of admitting defeat," adding, "It is the Iranian people, not the Iranian leadership, who will pay the price."

The NYT analyzed that it is unlikely Iran, already subject to thousands of sanctions, would surrender due to a few additional measures.

Instead, it noted a scenario could unfold where Iran responds by attacking merchant ships or U.S. allies, prompting further U.S. airstrikes.

Trita Parsi, a researcher at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a Washington think tank, criticized, "The U.S. believes it can achieve through increased economic pressure what it failed to accomplish in six months of war."

Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the nonprofit International Crisis Group, pointed out that if the U.S. intensification of sanctions fails, the only option left is a return to heightened military tension, and even if it succeeds, Iran could escalate tensions to break the U.S. naval blockade, adding, "Sanctions are more likely to be the prelude to another military conflict."

The U.S. broadcasting network CNN also published an analytical article on the same day evaluating the six-month mark of the war with Iran, pointing out that President Trump's war with Iran could trigger a much wider crisis extending far beyond the Middle East.

The report stated that the war with Iran has not only unintentionally impacted international security, but has also damaged America's standing on the global stage and provided adversary nations with opportunities to expand their influence.

Concerns are also rising that, as other nations watch Iran confirm the strategic value of the Strait of Hormuz during the conflict, they may attempt to seize key chokepoints in international waters.

The assessment suggests that Iran has set a precedent, and given that the U.S. has failed to prevent this over six months of war, it is entirely foreseeable that countries or factions adjacent to vital chokepoints will seek to secure leverage in the same manner.
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.