General Paul Eaton knows the consequences of poorly prepared wars in the Middle East. In Iraq, he led the training operations of the Iraqi army after the 2003 invasion conducted by the United States. Fifteen days into the conflict with Iran, the septuagenarian criticizes the lack of strategy from the White House and expresses concern for the future.
LA TRIBUNE DIMANCHE – Since the start of the war against Iran, the objectives set by the United States have constantly changed. What is the final goal being pursued?
PAUL EATON – American and Israeli strikes have destroyed military, political, and some economic resources in Iran. However, our civilian leaders seem incompetent and unable to leverage these actions to create a diplomatic opening, a possibility to achieve a final goal that is not yet defined. Due to this incompetent war conduct, the United States find themselves adrift in diplomatic, economic, and military aspects.
Has the Trump administration launched this conflict without anticipating the closure of the Strait of Hormuz? Does this seem coherent to you?
This closure was easily foreseeable. The use of this economic weapon was part of the hypotheses studied by the Interagency Operations Directorate responsible for long-term planning for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is included in Operation Plan 1002, which anticipates a large-scale conflict in the Persian Gulf.
This plan has been revisited several times. But since the purge of our top military officials by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, fear and intimidation have stifled the discussion phase before and after the publication of a battle order. Since the start of operations, ideas are put forward in press conferences by the President and the Defense Secretary without a supporting planning structure. They are improvising as they go along. The United States are reacting to Iranian actions.
Could the US Navy escort tankers through the strait, or is it too late to do so?
If we consider the scenario of a strait closure, planning should have ensured the US Navy or coast guards had the necessary means to ensure the transit of oil through the strait. It seems that this was not the case. This is a new illustration of military neglect in this conflict.
Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran see this war as an existential order.
Is a ground operation to recover Iranian enriched uranium stockpile or to seize the Kharg island possible?
Iran is a country with 93 million inhabitants, twice and a half the size of Texas. Its terrain is complex with a maritime front, very long communication lines. The discontent of Iranians towards their own government could easily turn into strong hostility towards any attacker. Taking control of the heights around the Strait of Hormuz or Kharg island might be possible, but introducing troops on Iranian soil seems extremely risky to me.
Are the United States trapped in an asymmetric conflict?
This chosen war was not aimed at defending a vital national interest of the United States. Trump decided to intervene largely influenced by the ease with which he removed Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela. He underestimated the Iranians and overestimated his own ability to influence events.
On the other hand, leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran see this war as an existential order. In this conflict, the initiative shifted from attacker to defender. The Iranians seized an opportunity with very low cost and high impact by closing the strait. The duration of this war could therefore depend on the Iranians and a decision made in an office in Tehran.
How long could it last?
The amount of ammunition available to both sides will impact the situation. The most likely scenario is that Trump declares victory by claiming to have neutralized Iran’s ability to wage war and influence the Gulf. However, if the strait remains closed after their departure, the United States would face an unsatisfied vital national interest. The global economy would suffer significantly, and our economy would also be threatened. The United States may have caused more damage than they think.
Are they making the same mistake as during the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
In our second war against Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld prohibited the Centcom command and staff planning the occupation phase of Iraq. He assumed that the Iraqi political infrastructure would remain in place without Saddam Hussein and that we would be welcomed with open arms. Therefore, we did not plan for the aftermath. The fact that we are witnessing an “Iraq 2.0” in Iran today shows that the American administration has not learned from the past or has forgotten it.
Is the US army becoming a tool at the service of the president?
By dismissing a handful of high-ranking generals, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth made it known that open discussions were not welcome in the military. A senior officer may hesitate to express his opinions. We have all sworn to support and defend the United States Constitution, not to pledge allegiance to the president or the Defense Secretary. The president and his Defense Secretary aim to make the US army a political instrument under their control. It remains to be seen if this will materialize.
