Listening to experts, analysts and the 24/7 nonstop media in the days since President Trump ordered a drone strike on Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani, one could be forgiven for concluding that we were right on the brink of a major war with Iran.
As a longtime State Department analyst and negotiator specializing in the Middle East, I’m conditioned to assume the worst. The U.S. is without a doubt in for a tough time with Tehran. Sources close to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have told reporters he is demanding direct and open retaliation against American targets. In the absence of a Tehran-Washington diplomatic off-ramp, it would be foolish to rule out uncontrolled escalation. But a major war is not inevitable.
So far in his presidency, Trump has been cautious when it comes to using military power against Iran, as his unwillingness to retaliate for the Iranian attacks against an American drone in June and Saudi oil facilities in September suggests. What prompted Trump to take out Suleimani is still not clear. News reports suggest he was angered by the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, worried that he’d allowed Tehran to think it could act with impunity and egged on by hard-liners like Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo, who has been arguing for a military response for months.
Now, judging by Trump’s tweets, he’s prepared to retaliate militarily and directly if Tehran strikes Americans or American targets. This may be a serious threat, an attempt to spook Iran or just Trumpian bluster. But one thing is clear: Beyond acting as a momentary distraction from his impeachment trial, war with Iran is not to the president’s advantage.
Trump has only one strategic imperative in 2020, and that’s vindication in an impeachment trial and reelection. A messy, all-out — and if the past is any guide unwinnable — war that results in skyrocketing oil prices, a meltdown in financial markets, economic dislocation and a surge in U.S. deaths at Iranian hands will not help him at the ballot box. George W. Bush didn’t risk his political future by starting a war with Iraq after 9/11 because he was perceived to be responding to a major attack on the United States. Trump would be the perpetrator of war with Iran.
Like Trump, Khamenei in Tehran wants to stay in power. He’s a crafty leader committed to expanding Iran’s regional reach, but his main objective is survival of the Islamic Republic and regime maintenance.
Khamenei isn’t suicidal, and he knows that Iran has been seriously weakened economically by the Trump administration sanctions — the “maximum pressure campaign” — and by the recent massive protests inside Iran. More importantly, Iran’s generals know that in a military confrontation with the U.S., the preponderance of force rests with Washington. Khamenei cannot be sure how a sustained U.S. campaign of air, missile and cyber strikes would affect the stability of his government and his power base.
And yet, Khamenei has promised “severe revenge” for the killing of Suleimani, and the supreme leader’s chief military advisor has promised a military attack against military targets. Trump’s tweeted red line doesn’t leave a lot of room for the Iranians to maneuver in. If Khamenei wants to avoid the risks of all-out war with the U.S., he must craft a response that demonstrates that Iran will not back down in the face of American military threats but that stays below the threshold that would trigger more U.S. strikes.
Operationally, this means we should not expect quick retaliation from Tehran. Again, if the past is any guide, Iran will choose a careful, calibrated and at least somewhat indirect response, most likely a serious cyberattack or the greenlighting of action by proxy forces against U.S. military personnel or American partners in the region — Israel, Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. However, should Khamenei make good on his threat of a frontal attack — Iranian forces firing missiles or drones against U.S. military bases or U.S. naval assets — the escalatory cycle will begin.
It would be a boon to world stability if the Trump administration and the Islamic Republic stepped back from the brink and considered talking rather than taking more revenge. Unfortunately that’s not very likely. There’s just too much mistrust on both sides.
But there is at least a chance that the mutual fear and uncertainty of war will preempt a major conflict. Should the U.S. avoid a full-scale conflict with Iran over Suleimani’s killing, that does not mean his death comes at no cost. The drone attack on the second most powerful man in Iran and in a third country was an act untethered from any coherent, long-term strategy. The killing has not made Americans more secure or limited Iran’s regional influence. What it has done is cripple the U.S.-Iraqi relationship, strengthen Iran’s power in the region and undermine the fight against Islamic State.
The best Americans can hope for in the current crisis is a return to the grinding competition that has marked the relationship between Iran and the U.S. during the Trump years. Given the alternative of severe and sustained regional escalation, I’d take it in a Washington-Tehran minute.
This article was originally published by the Los Angeles Times.
Comments(2)
Under Obama's appeasement policy toward Iran, America was very weak in the Middle East. By raising the deterrence quotient, Trump appears to have put the US in a stronger position with both the Sunni states and Israel. The key question is: Does Trump have an off-ramp, a reasoned alternative to the JCPOA? The answer is a clear no. The Democratic candidates are at the opposite end of the spectrum. They have no strategy of deterrence toward Tehran's regional hegemonic designs. And their approach to the Islamic state's nuclear ambition is the deeply-flawed JCPOA. Like the Obama-Biden administration, their chief concern is the quick return to the old status quo. In other words, kick the Iran nuclear issue down the road, while claiming that somehow Iran will be deterred after the sunset provisions. Of course, Obama never had a policy to halt Iranian aggression across the region. Farther to the left in the Democratic Party, socialists Sanders and Warren appear to be like libertarians -- that is, isolationists. This grouping would essentially leave the Middle East, create a vast security vacuum and open the region to an Iranian-Chinese-Russian axis. Is it any wonder that Japan and India are moving much closer together; or that Israel and Saudi Arabia are in search of strategic alternatives. As you correctly perceive, there are severe political and military risks for both Trump and the Ayatollah. But I don't believe the Iraqi government would want to risk a major backlash within the Sunni community by attempting to drive the Americans out. The Sunnis of Syria and Iraq need an outlet for political legitimacy and Tehran is certainly not an answer. Meanwhile, US sanctions against Iraq (as threatened by Trump) would devastate the Shia community as well. Yes, there will be an Iranian response -- and depending how many US personnel are killed the American reaction could be severe. But war with Iran will not look anything like the 2003 war with Iraq. The US will NOT try do occupy Iran. Instead it will crush it's economic, military and nuclear infrastructure from the air. The B-52's are already on the way to the Diego Garcia. One last thought: Trump always plays to his base. I know these people well. They are not Wilsonian. They are Jacksonian. If Americans die at the hands of Iran, they will want to strike back hard, very hard. Trump is certainly one of them, and maybe he doesn't really care about the 2020 election. In that case he won't need an Iran crisis off-ramp.
Fairly adolescent viewpoint.
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.