Research
- +6
Yasmine Farouk, Nathan J. Brown, Maysaa Shuja Al-Deen, …
{
"authors": [
"Michele Dunne"
],
"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
Iran and the United States: This Is the Moment to Step Back
After deadly drone attacks, there is still an opportunity for the United States and Iran to take an off-ramp rather than escalate further. History suggests they would be wise to do so.
Published on Jan 3, 2020
By assassinating Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani as well as Iraqi deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the United States has significantly upped the ante in what was already a dangerous game with Iran. Chafing under strong pressure from U.S. sanctions, Iran and its proxies have taken increasingly provocative steps over the last few months: attacking Saudi oil production, military facilities with U.S. personnel, and most recently the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Can the momentum be halted or reversed just as it is on the verge of spinning out of control?
Diplomacy Deferred
In several Middle East military conflicts—particularly in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen—there were moments early on when conflict might have been defused by deft U.S. diplomacy. Yet those opportunities weren’t seized, and not one of those wars has ended in a decisive manner that allowed a victor to impose peace terms. Each conflict has slowly, painfully returned to diplomacy to resolve underlying issues, and on terms that do not differ significantly from what might have been negotiated before thousands of lives were lost. Any war between the United States and Iran would be far more complicated than the others, most likely dragging in regional allies and involving asymmetric warfare around the globe.
A Small Window of Opportunity
The moment for diplomacy to avert a disastrous conflict between the United States and Iran is within the next few days. This is not a question of compromising with terrorists or of making concessions in response to brutality. It is in both U.S. and Iranian interests to preserve the option of diplomacy to resolve the outstanding issues (Iran’s regional interventions and nuclear program, U.S. sanctions) before tragedy ensues. Any strategic calculation that one side’s hand would be significantly stronger after a conflict—for example, the idea in Washington that the Iranian regime might collapse—is most likely incorrect, and in any case, it underestimates the likely costs.
Who Can Help to De-Escalate?
European allies—particularly France, Germany, and Switzerland—and some of the more independent parties in the Gulf, such as Oman, have the best relations with both sides and strongest motivations to avert conflict. They should become active, and receive a fair hearing in Washington and Tehran, in what could be only a brief period before Iran regroups to exact its revenge.
About the Author
Michele Dunne
Former Nonresident Scholar, Middle East Program
Michele Dunne was a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s Middle East Program, where her research focuses on political and economic change in Arab countries, particularly Egypt, as well as U.S. policy in the Middle East.
- Islamic Institutions in Arab States: Mapping the Dynamics of Control, Co-option, and Contention
- From Hardware to Holism: Rebalancing America’s Security Engagement With Arab StatesResearch
- +8
Robert Springborg, Emile Hokayem, Becca Wasser, …
Recent Work
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 Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?Commentary
The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.
Bashir Kitachaev
- Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By DateCommentary
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
- What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle EastCommentary
The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Beyond Oil: Hormuz Closure Puts Russia in the Lead in the Fertilizer MarketCommentary
The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- Tokayev’s New Constitution Is a Bet on Stability—At Freedom’s ExpenseCommentary
Kazakhstan’s new constitution is an embodiment of the ruling elite’s fears and a self-serving attempt to preserve the status quo while they still can.
Serik Beysembaev
