• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Aaron David Miller"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Trump and Khamenei Want the Same Thing

Both President Donald Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have something in common: they both want to hang on to power and a major war between Iran and the United States is not good politics for either one.

Link Copied
By Aaron David Miller
Published on Jan 8, 2020

Source: CNN

Despite the potential for serious escalation after the US killed Iran's top military commander Qasem Soleimani last Friday -- and Iran retaliated Tuesday with strikes on Iraqi air base hosting US and Iraq forces -- both Iran and the US have dodged a very dangerous bullet.

In fact, watching Tuesday night's Iran crisis play out, I was reminded of the joke about the guy who jumps off a 10-story building. As he's passing the 5th floor, someone yells out: "How ya doing?" "So far, so good," he replies.

But crisis averted does not mean America is on a glide path to a better relationship with Tehran. President Donald Trump's speech to the nation Wednesday morning -- confident, self-congratulatory and even triumphal in tone -- presented a dangerous misreading of both the US's leverage and Iran's continued capacity for trouble-making.

It's by no means clear that either country is willing or able to negotiate or even engage seriously with the another, though that's precisely what's needed.

Still, that both have avoided a serious escalation, for a variety of reasons, is remarkable. The targeted killing of Soleimani was a bold and even reckless move -- seemingly untethered from any broader strategy -- certain to complicate US relations with Iraq and make Americans in the region less, not more, secure.

Indeed, despite Trump's threats to hit back at retaliation, Iran broke precedent by responding openly from inside Iran, launching ballistic missiles against US forces in Iraq. Fortunately there were no American casualties. But it is still unclear whether Iranian strikes were designed to target Americans.

In a strange way, both Donald Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have something in common: they both want to hang on to power; and a major war between Iran and the US is not good politics for either one.

It would be foolish to assume that the Soleimani file is now closed from Iran's point of view; and that Tehran, cowed by the US, will -- as Trump indicated-- stand down.

Iran's ballistic missile program -- the capacity of which it demonstrated -- will continue. It will ramp up production of enrichment even while it allows International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in; and it will continue its efforts to spread its influence in the region.

Iraq will be a primary arena. Iran will continue to press the government of Iraq to push for US withdrawal. And even if it doesn't succeed, US-Iraq cooperation, especially in the fight against ISIS, will be constrained; the Popular Mobilization Forces -- Iraq Shia units, many of which are close to Iran -- may yet want to retaliate for the US killing of their leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who died along with Soleimani.

Iran is in no hurry. But it's clear that from the perspective of the Supreme Leader that the US and Iran are now more than ever in a confrontational mode.

It is very good sign that President Trump, despite his public bluster, did not choose to retaliate for the Iranian missile attacks. But we should not conflate that restraint with any fundamental change in the Trump administration's Iran policy or an easing of the maximum pressure campaign: in his speech, Trump promised more sanctions.

And though the President used boilerplate language about Iran being a great nation and wanting peace and a replacement nuclear deal, there's little reason to believe he or his administration will be proactive.

The US and Iran need a "deconfliction" channel and maybe a discreet one could be arranged. But the anger and bitterness on the part of Iran, and the Supreme Leader's profound mistrust of Donald Trump, as well as the yawning gaps between Tehran and Washington on everything from ballistic missiles to Iran's regional role, make meaningful progress hard to imagine.

Instead, we are likely to see a return to the grim competitive relationship that has marked US-Iranian ties for decades now. Both will want to avoid a major confrontation. But both will also see their status in the world as a zero-sum game where one side's loss is the other's gain.

With legislative elections looming in February, the Iranian attitude toward the US can only harden.

If we're lucky, there will be no catastrophic confrontation. and the US-Iranian relationship will fall somewhere in between a war nobody wants and a peace that's out of the question.

This article was originally published by CNN.

About the Author

Aaron David Miller

Senior Fellow, American Statecraft Program

Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on U.S. foreign policy.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    “It’s Not Like Turning a Switch On and Off”

      Helima Croft, Aaron David Miller

  • Commentary
    The Problem With the Idea That Netanyahu Made Trump Attack Iran

      Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller

Aaron David Miller
Senior Fellow, American Statecraft Program
Aaron David Miller
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastIran

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Article
    India’s Oil Security Strategy: Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic Choices

    This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?

    India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Commentary
    India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?

    On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    Military Lessons from Operation Sindoor

    The India-Pakistan conflict that played out between May 6 and May 10, 2025, offers several military lessons. This article presents key takeaways from Operation Sindoor and breaks down how India’s preparations shaped the outcome and what more is needed to strengthen future readiness.

      Dinakar Peri

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.