The bombing failed before, Iran still controls the same leverage, and Tehran remains willing to endure more pain than Washington.
Yet Trump has returned to the same strategy, apparently expecting surrender this time.
Prof. Walt says that's the central flaw.
The first bombing campaign didn't force Iran to capitulate; instead, the U.S ended up signing the MoU because the economic consequences of the war were becoming too severe to ignore.
It wasn't a good agreement from Washington's perspective; it was full of ambiguities, but it stopped the bleeding.
Then, according to Prof. Walt, the Trump administration tried to quietly work around one of the agreement's most important provisions: Article Five.
The part dealing with Iran's role in managing access to the Strait of Hormuz.
The administration began encouraging ships to use the Omani route, as far from Iranian waters as possible.
Iran saw that as a direct attempt to undermine the agreement and, more importantly, strip away what had become its greatest source of leverage.
So it attacked shipping, America bombed back, and suddenly everyone was right back where they started.
America is fighting a war of choice; Iran is fighting what it believes is a war for survival.
If Tehran believes the objective is regime change, then almost any sacrifice becomes worth making.
That's why Prof. Walt doesn't expect Iran to suddenly cave simply because the bombing has resumed.
Trump can still walk away from the war, but to do so means accepting that the U.S will be in a worse position than before it began.
When you start an unnecessary war, and it goes badly, you don't get to negotiate from a position of strength; you negotiate from the position you've been left with.
And Prof. Walt thinks the sooner Washington accepts that, the sooner this war has a chance of ending.
@stephenWalt
