Action Versus Analysis at the Institute of Politics

By Kelly Lenox

Source: Martha Mitchell, Harvard Gazette

Morgan Ortagus, former top Trump official, championed the administration’s recent military operations in Iran at an Institute of Politics discussion on Marth 10th. The event was moderated by Ned Price, a former Biden official. Ortagus claimed that the airstrikes were necessary to stop continued Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. Price disagreed with Ortagus, opposing the Trump administration’s recent strategy in the Middle East.

Ortagus argued that Iran’s repeated attempts to create enriched uranium and obtain nuclear capabilities have created a significant threat to our national security. Moreover, she argued that it is a threat to the wider region through its network of terrorist organizations, and to its own people through its systemic elimination of political dissent. The Trump Administration, she said, would not just sit back and watch “the massacring of innocent Iranian civilians” in order to defend the terrorist Iranian regime.

“The Iranians,” she explained, “would eat grass if they have to in order [for the regime] to get a nuclear weapon.” According to Ortagus, Trump does not intend to prolong the military operations like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, she said it was unclear whether his administration will attempt to force regime change. “All Politics,” Ortagus argued, “is local;” She believes that the West cannot unilaterally choose Iran’s next leader. Rather, the leader of the nation must be someone “the Iranian people feel like they have chosen.”

But while she denied the inevitability of regime change, Ortagus did not provide an alternative metric for victory. In Ortagus’ view, the war will end “when President Trump decides it’s going to end.” “As long as that man has breath in his body,” she added, “he will control the Republican party.”

According to Price, the future of both the war in Iran and the Republican Party are unclear. Both, Ortagus recognized, are at Trump’s whim. Price found it particularly disturbing that Trump barely mentioned Iran during the State of the Union Address, before bombing Iran a week later. It is unclear what Price wants Trump to have said, as it is generally unwise to reveal the plan of a military operation prior to its execution.

Throughout the discussion, it became clear that Price’s alternative to Trumpian politics was the incrementalist, unassertive policy of the past few decades, exactly the policy which has led us to the point where the current military operation has become necessary. Thus, what Ortagus and Price’s discussion showed is that the American people are caught in a necessary choice between the “analysis paralysis” of past administrations and the putative disorder of the Trump administration.

Of course, in ordinary times, a government should be cautious and attempt to include their constituencies in decision-making. But the threat of Iran is not ordinary. As outlined by Ortagus, the Iranian regime’s attacks on everyone and anyone within striking distance demand more than just diplomacy. Price may be familiar with the policy of endless and ineffective discussion and delay from his time at the United Nations. But effective military action requires action, not just committees revising subcommittee reports and condemning wrongdoers while refusing to stop them. As Americans, we can no longer mask delay with analysis. Instead, we must understand that there is a difference between caution and inactivity.