by Shireen T. Hunter
It was not surprising that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, national security adviser to President Donald Trump, “officially put…Iran on notice,” following what he cited as “recent Iranian actions, including a provocative ballistic missile launch and an attack against a Saudi naval vessel conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants.” President Trump himself later confirmed these comments.
In view of President Trump’s statements before and during the presidential campaign and given the ideological bent of his key advisers, a hardening of American position towards Iran was inevitable. In fact, even if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, Iran would no doubt have faced even tougher times than during the Obama administration.
Yet many Iranians, including political leaders, somehow deluded themselves into believing that as a businessman Donald Trump would be willing to cut a deal. Shortly after the presidential election, I warned in Lobelog that the only deal that Donald Trump likes is one that he wins totally. I also wrote that any deal based on the concept of win-win, of which Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, is so fond, is not the kind of deal that appeals to President Trump. Furthermore, in emphasizing America’ s honor and pride, Trump would be reluctant to deal with a country that he believes has humiliated America, including the incident of captured US Navy personnel in January 2016 .
Despite warnings by the United States, echoed by others as well, Iran decided to take the measure of the Trump administration by conducting a ballistic missile test only a few days after the new president assumed office. If indeed Tehran wanted to see how the new administration would respond, it got its answer: Iran has now been verbally rebuked and slapped with new US sanctions. As has been the habit of the Islamic Republic, the Iranian government’s immediate response to these warnings was defiance and tit-for-tat retaliation. Foreign Minister Zarif tweeted that Iran is “unmoved by threats,” although he did add that “We’ll never initiate war.” Iranian newspapers repeated Ayatollah Khomeini’s famous saying that America won’t dare do anything against Iran. Then Iran denied entry to a US wrestling team (later rescinded), and the Iranian media kept asking President Hassan Rouhani to retaliate against American sanctions.
The Islamic Republic has always walked too close to the edge in its foreign policy behavior, especially regarding relations with the United States, which has combined mostly rhetorical defiance with actual pragmatism. Whenever the risks of an actual confrontation have been great, Iran has backed off and even tried to cut a deal with the US, as at the time of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. However, as soon as the immediate threat has passed, it has reverted to its defiant posture. For example, only days after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) went into effect in October 2015, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tested a medium-range Emad ballistic missile, thus greatly dissipating any good will that might have been generated by the agreement. At the time, some moderate elements in Iran questioned the wisdom of this action.
This aspect of Iran’s foreign policy is a direct result of its distorted priorities. Instead of focusing on Iran’s interests as a country and nation, the Islamic Republic has pursued a policy shaped by a warped version of Islamic universalism. Ironically, Iran is not accepted in the overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim world as truly Muslim. Over the years, it has spent billions of dollars on Syria, which is Sunni-majority but Alawite-dominated, including shipments of cheap oil. It has also supported various Palestinian groups that every time have turned against it, as when Arafat supported Saddam Hussein’s 1980 invasion of Iran, and more recently Hamas, which has backed Saudi Arabia’s role in Syria. By picking an unnecessary fight with Israel, Iran has actually brought Israelis and some Arabs closer together.
Iran’s dispute with Israel has been the main reason for its troubled relations with America and Europe and to some extent even Russia and China. As long as Iran does not reach a modus vivendi with Israel, as it had in pre-Islamic Revolutionary times, it cannot expect normal relations with other countries. The threat of some form of military action, by the United States and/or Israel, will remain. In October 2016, German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel urged Iran “to improve its relationship with Israel if it wanted to establish closer economic ties with Germany and other western powers.”
Meanwhile, all of Iran’s neighbors, big and small, have taken advantage of the country’s international isolation in every possible way. For instance, though it boasts that it will not bow to America, Iran remained silent when tiny Turkmenistan cut gas supplies to the country during the current tough winter. A government that so often talks about Iran’s honor, pride, and dignity does not seem bothered by these insults and slights and many others like them. But it considers even talking to America against its national dignity.
Iran has paid a huge price for its distorted set of priorities and for privileging religion over national interests, including economic advancement. In fact, since the revolution, Iran has lost decades of economic development, not to mention the losses caused by the eight-year war with Iraq (1980-88). There have also been costs associated with sanctions, rampant corruption, and managerial deficiencies. Even the country’s birth rate has become negative, reflecting its people’s low expectation of future possibilities. Iran is facing both an environmental and a demographic disaster.
The Trump administration’s policies now confront the Islamic Republic and its leaders with a stark choice: either to give priority to protecting Iran’s survival as a country, nation, and culture or to risk sacrificing it on the altar of some vague notion of Islamic universalism and anti-imperialist struggle. Unfortunately, some in Iran would willingly sacrifice Iran to bring about a cataclysmic denouement in the Middle East. A US-Iranian confrontation that might even lead to open conflict might provide just such an opportunity.
As the new U.S. administration decides what to do about Iran’s behavior—and before it chooses to escalate its threats even to the point of a possible military confrontation—it should be aware that some Iranians would welcome a chance to entangle America in a long war, even if their country becomes the greatest victim of such a conflict. But perhaps Iran’s Islamists will realize before it is too late that, if Iran ceases to exist as country, they will be left with nothing and nowhere to go. Coming to their senses, they will thus step back from the brink before it is too late.
Photo of Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and President Hassan Rouhani by Erfan Kouchari via Wikimedia Commons.
Professor Hunter, for USA vis a vis countries in the ME, except Israel where the dog wags the tail, there is no middle position, either you are a puppet or you are not. US has treated ME as its vassal for more than half a century. For her, either you are with her or not. Islamic universalism of Islamic Republic is partially propaganda tool; otherwise IR is a very nationalist government and pragmatic, as you point out when its survival is at stake. On the other hand, its influence is due to the fact that it has stood up to the great Satan for decades. That is why Syria, Lebanon and disfranchised people like Palestinians look up to Iran as their champions. Being a friend of those who are down is not as chic or profitable as being friend with puppets like KSA or with Israel, but it is the correct and the just position. As we are finding it out in America, as we speak sometimes being on the right side matters.
If US could militarily depose IR, it could have done it 40 years ago when it was much weaker. Finally, Iran is too close to Russia for Russia to allow Iran to be destroyed. Russia likes to see a weak Iran, but cannot tolerate a partitioned Iran.
Yes, often Iran just can’t resist pushing America’s buttons. After all, that’s what Ahmedinijad was all about — and I would bet that the ruling mullahs got a kick out of watching him do it. But Iranians know, better than almost anyone else, that to even open a conversation with Washington is to give up some of your hard won dignity. Washington demands it, and Professor Hunter seems to accept it, unthinking, and it irritates her that the Iranian regime won’t accept it as the price countries have to pay to the hegemon, whether they fall into Washington’s columns as vassal or threat. But whenever I feel galled watching my PM — for the sake of tranquillity here at home, he no doubt believes — kissing Washington (and Israeli) butt, I have to have some sympathy and a bit of admiration for the Iranian leaders who just can’t resist sending the odd message to the US that Iranians are every bit as “exceptional” as arrogant and hypocritical American leaders take themselves to be.
Professor Hunter article pictures the reality from a very dark minimalistic view. She’s right about Mullahs ferocious provocative attitude, which not represent Iranian culture, nor society. And even the anti Israel sentiment is arbitrary.
My critical note would be her flawed contribution to the geopolitical reality. The Turkmenistan gas-deal argument is pretty ridiculous. Russia frustrates Iran’s gas-deals in central Asia and Caucasus. Trust me, even if Merkel was Iran’s president, she couldn’t seal the deal.
Furthermore, i genuinely believe Iran uses the anti-Israel “agenda” in order to control Levant (pipelines, supply chain of goods, and keeping an eye on Gulf-states). And Israel uses anti-Iran rhetoric to expand its settlements in West-bank. Both are satisfied, and the Arabs hopeless nagging.