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

Source: Getty

Commentary

On Iran, Momentary Relief Amid Trump’s Failed Policy

The escalating conflict between the United States and Iran seems to be cooling off. But any relief may be short-lived.

Link Copied
By Andrew Miller
Published on Jan 8, 2020

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.

About the Author

Andrew Miller

Former Nonresident Scholar, Middle East Program

Andrew Miller was a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s Middle East Program.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Dividing the Nile

      Andrew Miller

  • Commentary
    Nine Reasons Why Declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization Would Be a Mistake

      Michele Dunne, Andrew Miller

Andrew Miller
Former Nonresident Scholar, Middle East Program
Political ReformSecurityForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastIran

Carnegie 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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Kurdish Rebel Groups Are Wary of Tehran’s Next Move

    Following its deal with the United States, Iran may act against Iraq-based dissidents.

      Wladimir van Wilgenburg

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The West’s Climate Colonialism in the Greater Middle East

    There is a disturbing structural parallel between the old global energy economy and the new green transition.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    New Syria, Old Lebanon: Absence of the State

    Any move by the United States to make good on Trump’s suggestion that Washington persuade Damascus to confront Hezbollah militarily would have catastrophic consequences. 

      Kheder Khaddour

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Lebanon Should Try to Place Hezbollah on the U.S.-Iran Table

    As talks begin between Washington and Tehran, Beirut has an opening to advance a regional plan for the party’s disarmament.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Board Up Donald Trump’s Failed Board of Peace

    What is behind Marco Rubio’s announcement that the body is now an international nongovernmental organization?

      • Zaha Hassan

      Zaha Hassan

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.