• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "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 Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Ten Years After Karimov’s Death, How Much Has Uzbekistan Really Changed?

    In the tenth year of his presidency, President Mirziyoyev’s system is becoming even more personalized than that of his predecessor Karimov.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    As It Turns 25, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Reflects the New World Order

    With the growth in points of friction between the great powers, organizations like the SCO will continue to play a role in the strategic adaptation of the smaller powers caught between them.

      Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    As a Former Defense Minister Revolts in Ukraine, Is Zelensky’s System Fracturing?

    The greater threat to Zelensky comes not from Fedorov alone, but from the convergence between the former defense minister’s political campaign and the anti-corruption investigations moving ever closer to the presidential administration.

      Balázs Jarábik

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Fedorov’s Challenge to Zelensky Could Upend Ukrainian Politics

    With his public call for new elections in Ukraine, ex-defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov has opened Pandora’s box.

      Konstantin Skorkin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia’s Rubber-Stamp Duma Elections Are Exposing Schisms in Putin's Regime

    In the discussions made possible by the State Duma election campaign, one question is being asked more and more loudly. “What next?”

      Andrey Pertsev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.