Many Americans are breathing a collective sigh of relief as the immediate risk of a conventional war between the United States and Iran appears to be receding. Iran’s January 7 missile salvo against two Iraqi installations housing U.S. soldiers in response to the January 3 assassination of Iranian major general Qassem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which may have been designed to avoid American casualties, may satisfy the Iranian leadership’s short-term need to save face without provoking additional action by U.S. President Donald Trump. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s statement that Iran had “concluded proportionate measures” in retaliation for Soleimani’s death was met by an uncharacteristically nonchalant tweet from Trump declaring that “all is well.” Trump’s January 8 national address seemed to confirm that the United States was not contemplating a military response to Iran’s attack, creating hope that both sides want to de-escalate a dangerous standoff.
Iran May Not Be Finished Yet
Unfortunately, it is not at all clear that Iran’s missile barrage represents the totality of the country’s response to the killing of one of its most important leaders. At the very least, Iran will intensify efforts to oust the United States from Iraq and neighboring Syria, as Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei asserted in a January 8 speech. While the wisdom of a long-term U.S. presence in these countries is debatable, American forces continue to play an important role in preventing the reemergence of the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. And even those advocating for the withdrawal of U.S. forces should acknowledge that it is better to do so in an orderly and well-thought-out manner, not under political or military duress.
Worse, it remains a distinct possibility that Iran will not be satisfied until it avenges Soleimani’s death by killing Americans. Iran’s fabricated account of American deaths in the missile attack circulated via state media may help the regime to save face at home, but it does not provide any deterrence vis-à-vis the United States. Iran could calculate that, if it does not impose a direct cost on the United States for the assassination, it will be open season on Iranian leaders. Short of launching another conventional attack on U.S. forces, Iran could resort to asymmetric warfare, directing its proxies to conduct terrorist attacks against U.S. soldiers, diplomats, or civilians.
Trump Has Made Things Worse
Even if these scenarios do not come to pass, however, the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign already severely undermined U.S. interests. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or “Iran deal,” which foreclosed Iran’s paths to a nuclear weapon for years, may have been fatally damaged as Iran sheds more of its commitments in response to U.S. violations. Iran’s malign regional behavior, which admittedly continued while the JCPOA was in full force, has only escalated.
The U.S. military has been forced to suspend counter–Islamic State operations in Iraq to focus on protecting its troops. U.S.-European relations have been badly bruised, with European leaders muttering about going their own way. Regional energy supplies look increasingly vulnerable, causing a rise in global oil prices to the detriment of the American consumer. And, of course, civilians in the region, especially the Iraqis, continue to suffer in circumstances largely not of their own making.
Respite May Be Brief
Americans are nevertheless right to be relieved at the apparent de-escalation between the United States and Iran. Almost regardless of what happens next, it remains the best possible outcome. But that underscores just how disastrous U.S. foreign policy has become under Trump. He has created an environment in which it is impossible to advance U.S. interests. All the United States can do is minimize and mitigate losses.
The only way to break out of this action-reaction cycle is for Trump to abandon his ill-conceived policy and try to do what he loves most: make deals. It may prove impossible to return to the JCPOA, but two things are clear about Trump’s pressure campaign. One, it will not produce a better nuclear deal with Iran. Two, it does not make it any easier to deal with other aspects of Iranian behavior. The Soleimani assassination was no victory for Trump, and “maximum pressure” has been an abysmal failure. Unless Trump changes course, our fleeting relief will soon be eclipsed by the next crisis.
Comments(2)
A Trump victory in the 2020 election will decide when and how "maximum pressure" will be successful. For this reason alone, revolutionary Islamic Iran is counting on the Democratic Party to end Trump's economic sanction campaign. Iran wants to return to the JCPOA; which will allow it to continue to enhance its industrial nuclear program. Zarif specifically left that door open just a day ago. In fact, the foreign minister's statements are direct proof that Iran wants to influence the next American election in the same way they influenced the 1980 US election. If Trump's policy was already a failure, Iran wouldn't be so keen to depose him. This is just common sense. Meanwhile, the supreme leader likes to talk tough, but he must understand Tehran's severe military limitation visa vie the US air force. For this author to even suggest that the Trump policy is a failure -- at such a premature stage, and without much logic behind the assertion -- is more an indication of strong political rhetoric rather than actual analysis. Tehran would like nothing more than a Biden, Sanders or Warren victory next November. But appeasement or isolationism is hardly a policy. The fact is that the Democratic Party is without any strategy to alter Iran's hegemonic drive across the Levant. If you are to talk of failure, this precisely the place to start. The Democratic Party candidates' major contention is to return to the events of 2003 and decide who supported the war. But history didn't stop in 2003. Yes, Bush the son didn't listen to Bush the father. And Saddam fell. But the Arab Spring and the Green movement in Iran were clear and positive reactions to the war and the Muslim world's desire for legitimate government. Obama and Biden failed the Arabs (especially the Syrians) as they failed both the Iraqi and Iranian people by concentrating on a policy of acute regional compartmentalization. Every Obama action was centered on achieving a nuclear deal with Iran. Nothing else that Suleimani was doing even slightly mattered to Obama and company. In fact, this misguided policy blind spot triggered the extreme Sunni overreaction called ISIS. I can think of no stronger point of evidence to prove the utter bankruptcy of the Obama-Biden years. After calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, they were forced to go back in. Talk of failure, get real. All this for an Iranian sweetheart nuclear deal called the JCPOA. Is it any wonder Iran will cheer for the Democrats this November!
Pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal was a venture in incalculable risk on the part of the Trump Administration, when the people of Syria were facing, and continue to face assault by rocket attacks from Israel. A US policy shift in this is needed. May we hope for the best. Tom Makin, member, United Nations Association.
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.