Listen to this article:

Chandigarh: Few countries have done more to unsettle successive US presidents than Iran. Remarkably, it achieved this disruption with two US leaders who could scarcely have been more different in temperament, ideology or governing style.

One was a cautious, seminal, morally driven former naval officer who placed his faith in diplomacy, restraint and human rights. The other is a combative 80-year-old populist who built his political identity around bravado, unpredictability and deal-making. 

Yet both Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump ultimately ran into the same uncomfortable reality that Iran possessed a unique ability to frustrate American objectives, absorb immense military and economic pressure and expose the limits of US power.

For both presidents, separated by more than four decades, Iran became more than a foreign-policy challenge. Carter was consumed by a crisis born of revolution and upheaval; Trump was confronted by the consequences of a confrontation he had helped escalate during his second term.

Yet both arrived at the same uncomfortable conclusion: even the world’s most militarily powerful and wealthiest nation cannot always bend events – or determined adversaries – to its will. 

That was the central argument advanced recently by Financial Times (FT) columnist and Chief US commentator Edward Luce. His thesis, in a cogently argued analysis published on June 10, was not that Carter and Trump were similar men. They were, in fact, almost complete opposites. Rather, Luce maintained that Iran became the issue that threatened to define both presidencies by revealing a deeper truth about American power itself: its limits and the difficulty of translating overwhelming strength into desired political outcomes.

Jimmy Carter and President William Tolbert of Liberia wave from their motorcade during a visit to Monrovia, Liberia on April 3, 1978. Photo: White House photo, Bill Fitz-Patrick, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

For Carter, the humiliation came in the form of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis, during which 52 Americans were held captive for 444 days. The more Carter sought to resolve the crisis, the more he appeared trapped by it.

The failed Operation Eagle Claw military mission, which he launched to rescue the hostages, involving a complex force of helicopters and transport aircraft, ended in disaster in the Iranian desert, killing eight US servicemen. This only further reinforced perceptions of US impotence and contributed significantly to Carter’s defeat in the 1980 Presidential elections.

Trump, for his part, confronts a different version of the same dilemma.

He entered office, for the second time last year, promising to restore American strength, deter adversaries and bend rivals to his will. Yet, in recent weeks, Iran has demonstrated an ability to resist coercion, absorb pressure, and force Washington to react to events rather than shape them. As Luce observes, the danger for Trump is not military defeat but political perception: the appearance that events are controlling the president rather than him controlling events.

But Iran’s significance extends beyond Carter and Trump. It represents something larger: a recurring challenge to an enduring American belief – and hubris – that overwhelming military and economic power can reliably produce desired political outcomes in line with predetermined objectives.

The US military history is not flattering

For decades, the US has cultivated a global mythology of military competence and strategic mastery, reinforced by Hollywood’s powerful portrayal of a nation that enters global crises reluctantly, fights valiantly – and, of course, fairly – before ultimately emerging triumphant.

A closer examination of US military history,........

© The Wire