Strangulation of Persia: Why Trump’s Iran Policy Will Backfire

Protestors holding photo of Ayatollah Khamenei (serkan senturk via Shutterstock)

by Sina Azodi

Over the past four decades, U.S.-Iranian relations have experienced frequent periods of hostility. The Trump administration, however, has escalated tensions, going as far as threatening Iran with war. The administration is under the false impression that by strangling Iran’s economy through sanctions and applying a “maximum pressure policy” it can force Iran to capitulate to its demands or face the possibility of its collapse. This is either a dangerous misjudgment or a calculated decision to go to war with Iran that will have devastating ramifications for regional stability and U.S. interests.

Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese ambassador to the United States warned that “Japan is being placed under severe pressure by the United States to yield to the American position… is preferable to fight rather than to yield to pressure.” Imperial Japan concluded that, under severe U.S. economic pressure, only military action could alter the situation. Although Japan was eventually forced to sign an unconditional surrender, once the survival of a state is at stake, the perceived military and political benefits of an attack could outweigh a suffocating demise.

While the Trump administration works to cut Iran’s oil exports to zero, Iranian officials have repeatedly warned that, if Iran cannot export its oil, they will halt other countries’ oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. Surely, any attempts by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz will provoke a U.S. military response. Recently, General Hossein Alayi, a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) noted that “if Iran can shut down the strait of Hormuz, America can reopen it…. Iran must analyze the costs and benefits of such an action.” Under extreme pressure, Iranians may conclude that the “political and military” benefits of closing the Strait of Hormuz outweigh the costs and act upon their threats. The ensuing war will be disastrous for everyone, including the United States.

It may seem “irrational” for Iran to provoke a direct confrontation with the United States. However, Iran’s cost-benefit analysis is unique in the sense that, under foreign pressure, it will not act on the basis of what Western observers call “rationality.” Iran is an ancient civilization with deep roots in Persian nationalism and Shia teachings, both of which denounce capitulation and honor sacrifice in the face of oppression. In the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the strategically isolated Iran fought eight years to repel the internationally backed Saddam Hussein. Iranians retain a bitter memory of this lopsided conflict.

Newly declassified documents released by the National Security Archive reveal that America’s allies in both Europe and in the Persian Gulf have previously warned the United States of the dangers of attempting to isolate Iran or pursue a regime collapse. In a cable from the U.S. embassy in Abu Dhabi to Washington, an Emirati official wrote that “If Iran were pushed over the brink …  the aftermath could pose risks for the entire region,” and if seriously threatened “it might try to retaliate.” He further cautions against attempts at precipitating regime collapse by suggesting that the “ensuing instability will create serious problems for the region.”

The Trump administration’s  current maximum-pressure policy to force Iran to capitulate to its long list of demands also affects Iran’s domestic politics in ways that undermine American interests in the long term. First, as the United States tightens the noose around Iran’s mismanaged economy, competing factions of Iran’s political establishment are converging to address the external pressure. Recently, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called on different political factions to “unite against [US] economic and political pressure.” Meanwhile, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei recently urged state institutions to support President Rouhani’s fight against U.S. pressure.

Second, the current U.S. strategy will simultaneously undermine the position of pro-engagement factions and set the stage for the return of Iranian hardliners who oppose any engagement with the West, especially the United States. Another State Department cable quotes former French President Jacques Chirac’s warning that “It would be very dangerous to isolate Iran totally…. experience proves that the U.S. embargo benefits only the extremists.”

The rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power in 2005 was the product of another pressure policy on Iran. When Iran’s reformist President Mohammad Khatami initiated a détente with the United States, the Bush administration not only dismissed Iran’s overtures but put Iran on the Axis of Evil list. “Some people at the White House rewarded Iranians with a President that went on for eight years. He gave me an early retirement. Now I am back from the dead,” Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif noted in 2014.

The Trump administration may not care about the rise of hardliners in Iran or, worse, welcomes the development as a pretext for war. President Trump’s national security team is comprised of well-known Iran hawks, such as National Security Advisor John Bolton, who not only dismiss any negotiations with America’s enemies but see war with Iran as a desirable outcome. U.S.-Iranian relations are already on a worrisome trajectory; war is not unimaginable. The rise of hardliners in Iran could escalate tensions even further, making the outbreak of a conflict even more likely.

The Trump administration’s approach to Iran is a dangerous shift from the long practiced “carrots and sticks” to a “no carrots and only sticks” approach. For a nationalistic country like Iran, which over the course of its long history has never bowed down to its adversaries, it is simply inconceivable to negotiate under circumstances that resemble a humiliating capitulation to a bullying adversary.

Sina Azodi is a PhD student in political science and a graduate researcher at University of South Florida’s Center for Strategic and Diplomatic Studies. He received his BA & MA from Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @azodiac83

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Guest Contributor

Articles by guest writers.



  1. America no longer manufactures any consumer products and it only produces weapons. If it stops that too it’d be like a wounded elephant that it can no longer stand up on its four legs!

  2. In past seventy so years of US engagement with Iran and Western Asia, US policy makers never understood or were able to effectively plan on how to deal with the deep hearted, culturally genetic nationalism of Iranians, which fully embodies pre and post Islam Iranian traditions and language and religion. IMO, this is not because the Americans or the Brits before them are unaware of this deep cultural pride that Iranians feel for their country and traditions. Americans as well as the rest of western major powers are well aware of the fact of Iranian deep-rooted nationalism, but they can’t offer and or plan, a solution that conforms their interests and plans with that of Iranian interests, which will satisfy the Iranian nationalism and her pride in her independence that can preserve her culture and traditions. Iran and Iranians are not Japan or Germany that can give up their tradition, pride and nationality for security from the west. This is where the western policy planers have continualy lacked options on how to bring a larger masses of iranian to agree with them and their plans in western asia. Iranian nationalism is not the same as Arab, or western white nationalism, is adeeply rooted pride in one’ rich culuture and history, which makes it not easy to understand or to getrid of it.

  3. @JJC, when intellectuals get fed up with a deeply corrupt and dysfunctional system of government or become a part of it to satisfy their greed, decision-making will be left to Zombies and Ruffians. This is exactly what that is presently happening to the U.S.

  4. jjc: “Seeing armed conflict as “desirable” should eliminate anyone from a position any higher than typing internet comments from their basement suite.”

    You would think so, yes, but that assumes that the USA shares the same definition of “irrational” that this writer applies to Iran.

    That assumption is false: warmongering is seen as perfectly rational as far as the ruling class in the USA is concerned, since they believe themselves to be immune to any blow-back from such belligerence.

    The 9/11 terrorists flew planes into buildings because “they hate our freedom”.
    Bolton decries the level of US debt without blushing over the $trillions wasted in Iraq.
    No American – then or now – would link the 1940 oil embargo with the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

    They are simply blind to the consequences of their actions, and are therefore unable to carry out any halfway- sensible cost/benefit calculations before going BANG! on other countries.

    It is all about instant gratification, and in the USA nothing is more gratifying than going BANG! on another country.

  5. Everything in this universe acts under the law of expansion and resistance, whether fluid dynamics, electricity, or social systems. Guess it all looks ok from the penthouse eh spanky ?

Comments are closed.