War with Iran not like other wars

OPINION:

Each series of bombs dropped somewhere in Iran denies political support for a president needing a rally-round-the-flag foundation for this war.

Without that support, hand-wringing over the November midterm elections is dictating war strategy. Gas and grocery prices are more important to the public than a nuclear threat.

It is clear that the Trump administration has failed to properly frame its intentions. Americans will support their president in wartime if they understand the danger and sense fear at an emotional level. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the attack on 9/11, there was instant support for going to war.

Conversely, the Vietnam War was waged against the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. For many Americans, it was not our fight.

Today’s war with Iran must be viewed through a very different lens from the one we have used in the past. It is a foreign war of choice. We have not been directly attacked on American soil. However, with apologies to Shakespeare, what’s past is not prologue.

For the first time in the history of the world, we are facing a potential enemy controlled by determined religious zealots who openly declare their intentions to wage war against the infidels of the West with weapons of mass destruction. There is no precedent for that threat.

American, Middle Eastern and Western European leaders have never wavered in the need to restrain a government that reportedly killed 50,000 of its own citizens. For the first time, an American president has acknowledged that the Iranian threat is on the verge of becoming a catastrophe that must be shut down.

However, President Trump, with his own brand of hubris, has decided that he does not need to convince the public that his actions are warranted. With no more than the oft-repeated “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” he assumes the public will fill in the rest of the story.

That is a strategic communications failure.

A recent poll of 1,100 U.S. adults shows that 35% of Americans ages 18 to 34 believe a nuclear attack in the Middle East or Europe would be either neutral or positive for our stock market.

When the fear of high prices is worse than the fear of a nuclear-armed Iran, there is a crying need to educate the public.

I recently had the Perplexity AI search engine conduct a scenario analysis to quantify the financial impact of a single Iranian nuclear detonation in Europe or the Middle East. The impact would be unimaginable to most Americans.

Depending on whether a city, port or financial hub is hit, trillions of dollars in damage and huge death tolls are expected. The stock market sell-off could exceed 50%, devastating 401(k) accounts for hundreds of millions of Americans. The price of oil could spike to $200 per barrel, translating to $6.50 to $7.50 per gallon.

Then there is the inevitable public demand for costly retaliation. Unwilling to allow Iran’s leaders and their allies in China, Russia and North Korea to believe even one nuclear detonation could go unchecked, the U.S. and Western allies would respond.

Some will argue that the West would not retaliate and widen the war with the mullahs who openly embrace death in pursuit of religiously dictated goals. The historic parallel is the Japanese government wanting to keep fighting America even after two atomic bombs had flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is no way to get into the heads of zealots.

There are obviously more questions than answers before us, but Mr. Trump must convince Americans that it is a sucker’s bet to think worst-case outcomes are impossible. The 9/11 Commission observed that flying planes into iconic buildings resulted from an American “failure to imagine.”

Mr. Trump knows the stakes. In addition to serving as commander in chief, he has a communications job. When it comes to war, Americans will not just take his word for the necessity. A few facts, well delivered, would make a great difference.

• Rick Berman is president of RBB Strategies.