Trump’s Iran quandary is a question of strategic warfare — and showbiz

Sometimes, military strategists must take the term “theater of war” literally — and make performative strikes meant to impress an audience, rather than achieve combat objectives.

A well-done show of force overawes an opponent and forces them to back down, but a misfire signals weakness and escalates the conflict.

That’s why the prospect of a strike on Iran is such a challenge for President Donald Trump.

“When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt,” President George W. Bush announced in 2001.

But sometimes that’s just what happens.

Last week, for instance, Russia’s Vladimir Putin unleashed an Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missile on Ukraine, supposedly in response to a drone attack on one of his residences.

Its six hypersonic warheads came down like bolts of lightning, Putin later crowed, asserting that his show of force demonstrated Russia’s unstoppable military prowess.

Ukrainians, however, were not impressed.

Oreshnik was designed to deliver nuclear warheads, which only need to land within a few hundred meters of the aimpoint. Conventional weapons require much greater accuracy.

The strike was roughly as powerful as a single 2,000-pound bomb, but spread out over six impact sites across a wide area.

One warhead reportedly hit a building, punching down into a sub-basement where it destroyed an archived collection of the works of Lenin. Others made holes in the ground.

This performative action convinced no one but Putin’s most dedicated fans — and even they may have rolled their eyes at wasting a $40 million missile to do less damage to Ukraine than Russia’s nightly waves of small, cheap Shahed drones inflict.

Similarly, Iran’s leadership last year mounted what it called “devastating and powerful missile” strikes on US military bases in Qatar in response to the destruction of its nuclear facilities.

In fact, the missiles were intercepted and there were no casualties; the face-saving move allowed Iran’s leadership to accept a cease-fire with Israel.

The domestic audience may have been fooled, but the operation convinced the rest of the world of Iran’s weakness.

Contrast these with Operation Absolute Resolve, which captured Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela this month.

It too was a comparatively small operation with few casualties; Maduro was quickly replaced by his deputy.

Yet the mission sent seismic shock waves through the entire region and exposed Venezuela’s ineffectual military in the face of US power.

Absolute Resolve was a show of force done right: a political goal achieved without an invasion, mass bombings or civilian casualties.

But another recent US intervention, the December airstrikes targeting Islamic State militants in Nigeria, was no such triumph.

The operation included Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as Hellfire missiles from Reaper drones — with underwhelming results.

Five buildings were reportedly hit, causing some injuries but no deaths, and images of the debris showed at least four cruise missiles failed to detonate.

Rather than demonstrating American military power, the strike may have highlighted its limits against the ongoing Nigerian insurgency.

This mixed history helps explain Trump’s hesitation to aid Iran’s protesters with military strikes.

The regime’s leadership will have gone to ground, making themselves difficult targets, and hitting air bases or other large military installations won’t short-circuit Tehran’s attacks on its people.

American air power could target oil facilities, telecommunications or power plants to push regime change — but such strikes could create ill will and spread chaos.

A full-scale invasion in support of the protests is out of the question; any action must be carefully calibrated, precisely directed and carried out with pinpoint accuracy.

If not, Iranian propaganda may succeed in making the United States look like the enemy, rallying support to the regime — a significant defeat for Trump’s foreign policy.

So what’s on the table?

A decapitation strike against Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei might just be possible; American intelligence can still pull off surprises, as we saw in Venezuela — and if Khamenei can be found, he can be hit.

Alternatively, strikes against Iran’s national police or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would send a strong message that the United States sides with the protesters, while weakening the state’s ability to suppress them.

Strikes might focus on those forces’ leadership and arsenals, or on symbolic targets such as buildings besieged by protesters — requiring very precise, up-to-date intelligence from inside the country.

And while cyber and other electronic operations supporting the protesters are important, putting America’s stamp on the operation will require something visibly successful — and, ideally, spectacular enough to turn the tide.

Scripting such a show of force will require as much political finesse as high-tech firepower.

David Hambling is the author of “Swarm Troopers: How Small Drones Will Conquer the World.”