Restraint and Patience … and Donald Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/opinion/donald-trump-iran.html

Version 0 of 1.

It was welcome news to see President Trump announce on Twitter that he called off airstrikes against Iran this week when presented with an estimated human cost. The deaths of 150 Iranians, Mr. Trump said he concluded, would not have been proportionate to the Iranian downing of a robotic spy plane.

(It would be welcome news indeed if the administration also started paying far greater attention to the disproportionate human costs of many of its policies — be it separating children from their families at home; or gutting environmental regulations that prevent thousands of deaths annually from heart attacks and respiratory disease; or selling arms to Saudi Arabia for its war in Yemen, which has cost the lives of tens of thousands of people.)

Mr. Trump said he was “in no hurry” to retaliate. Such patience is wise. Perhaps he can use the additional time to sort out what is evidently a chaotic decision-making process. It’s alarming that a potentially lethal strike was averted with only 10 minutes to spare — and that, according to the president’s own account, he learned of the possible death toll only at the last minute. That’s very strange, and disturbing: Casualty estimates are routinely given to commanders and their civilian bosses early in the process of weighing military actions.

Also concerning is a report from The Times that the United States military cannot say for certain whether or not the drone violated Iranian sovereignty, as officials in Tehran have claimed. Trump administration officials had previously asserted that the drone was flying in international airspace. Clarity on such a pivotal fact about the incident should be a prerequisite for any further action.

If the trip to the brink of hostilities and back (at least for now) offers any lessons, it is that important decisions should not be made with minimal consultation and at the last possible moment. As Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, noted Friday afternoon: “Hostilities must not be initiated without the approval of Congress.”

Beyond seeking the approval of Congress, the administration also ought to be working to convince nations that share American values of the justification for retaliating against Iran — and perhaps to enlist them in any punitive economic or military measures.

Given that one third of the world’s crude oil transits the Strait of Hormuz, along Iran’s southern coast, a great many more countries beyond the United States and Iran have an interest in preventing a military conflict that could lead to great loss of life and destabilize the global economy. There is little to be gained by sitting on the sidelines if international action could forestall a clash. A meeting about the future of the 2015 nuclear deal, set for Vienna on June 28 with the leaders of France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia may provide such an opportunity.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said the administration is open to negotiations without preconditions with Iran, a process that would be made easier with the establishment of a clear line of communication — a hotline even — between Iran and the United States.

Iran rejected a proposal for such a direct line in 2011, but much has happened since, and the risks of conflict are now growing sharply. Even if the two governments are not ready for diplomacy, at the very least such a connection could help ensure that the many military assets arrayed around one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes don’t ignite a war.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.