“If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the s**t out of them,” President Donald Trump told Fox News on Monday. <\/p>\n
That language has become familiar when directed at Iran\u2014but Oman, while causing trouble now and then, is a U.S. ally. Is this kind of thing effective? What are the consequences of throwing threats around like this, especially for a president with a recurring disconnect between rhetoric and reality? As we navigate the damaging and embarrassing Persian Gulf quagmire, it’s time to talk more softly, but also more clearly.<\/p>\n
Oman has spent decades perfecting a diplomatic trick. It has been a close friend of the United States, a partner of the Gulf monarchies, and a useful intermediary among them, while preserving enough independence to talk to people Washington cannot. It was the first Gulf country to openly receive an Israeli leader, Yitzhak Rabin, in 1994, yet has also not joined the Abraham Accords.<\/p>\n
Read More on Opinion<\/p>\n
This balancing act, while annoying to many outsiders, has served Oman well, keeping the country stable and secure while giving successive U.S. administrations a diplomatic channel into Tehran. And Oman, under both longtime Sultan Qaboos and his successor, Sultan Haitham, was ultimately dependable.<\/p>\n
That is what makes Oman’s current behavior peculiar. Muscat is apparently discussing with Tehran a mechanism for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, vital for global energy supplies, that could give Iran a role in regulating maritime traffic and would seemingly involve payments by commercial vessels. The details remain fluid, and Oman may describe payments as service fees rather than tolls\u2014a trick Iranian officials have already tried\u2014but any version of this would upend global maritime trade.<\/p>\n
Copycat actions would emerge at other chokepoints, not only the Bab el-Mandeb, which Iran’s Houthi proxies have already messed with, but also the Bosporus, Strait of Malacca, Sunda Strait, the Strait of Gibraltar and more.<\/p>\n
It simply cannot be allowed. Trump is right to be angry<\/a>. The problem is that Trump has chosen to communicate that message in the most counterproductive way imaginable. His bluster once shocked; his threat that “an entire civilization will die” in Iran four months ago sounded berserk, but it was believed by some that he might be serious in seemingly telegraphing nuclear war<\/a>. <\/p>\n But once such threats become commonplace and are accepted as bluster, they weaken America’s position by making it look desperate. Iran’s rulers clearly see it that way.<\/p>\n That is the problem with the boy who cried wolf, even when the wolf comes in the form of an American aircraft carrier. The United States actually does possess an enormous capacity for destruction, and everybody knows it. The question is whether the president is willing to use that power when doing so would carry political, economic and strategic costs.<\/p>\n The answer seems to generally be no. Threatening to bomb Oman, an American security partner that hosts U.S. military access and has spent decades serving as an American diplomatic channel to Tehran, sounds absurd. It makes you look unserious. Or in Trump’s case, more unserious.<\/p>\n President Theodore Roosevelt famously advised presidents to \u201cspeak softly and carry a big stick.” Trump certainly has a big stick, but by not speaking softly, his threats carry the perception of diminishing returns. <\/p>\n