by Shireen T. Hunter
Last week, tensions between Iran and the United States reached even more alarming levels. First, Iran’s Supreme Leader admonished Iranians that since the enemy—read America—is in war mode, Iran, too, should prepare for war (Arayesh Jangi Begirad). Then there was the news of the U.S. aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln going to the Middle East, ostensibly because of threats posed by Iran. According to some reports, this move was triggered by intelligence that Iran was moving missiles to the Persian Gulf.
In response, in a calculated step-by-step escalation, Iran declared that it will not abide by some of its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), although during a visit to Moscow Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said that Iran will not leave the nuclear deal. Other officials in Tehran however, indicated that Iran is mulling over what its next step should be and that exiting the agreement is one possibility. Tehran gave Europe 60 days to live up to at least part of its commitments under the JCPOA by facilitating trade and banking operations.
Whether in response to Iran’s move or separate from it, Washington imposed new sanctions on a range of Iran’s steel, copper, and Iron industries, which directly or indirectly employ a large number of Iranians. In addition to eating into Iran’s foreign exchange earnings by exacerbating Iran’s employment problems, these sanctions could potentially lead to social turmoil. Already, Iran is not able to access a significant part of its non-oil export earnings because of banking and other restrictions. A few week ago, Iran’s minister of industries said that, out of $30 billion of non-oil exports, Iran has been able only to access $10 billion.
Dangerous Illusions
Despite increasing pressures and threats, there is no indication from various Iranian media sources and statements by Iranian officials that Tehran is fully aware of the risks involved in its brinkmanship and tit-for-tat policy with Washington. Iranian authorities still apparently believe that President Trump does not want to become engaged in a war with Iran, and that only National Security Advisor John Bolton and perhaps also Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are pushing him in that direction.
This assumption may turn out to be true. But there is also at least equal and perhaps even more chance that it might not be. Let’s not forget that many Iranians rooted for Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. Parroting what they read in Western news sites, they believed that, being a businessman, Trump wanted a deal with Iran. They did not realize that even someone as powerful as the American president cannot do everything that he or she wants. There are the demands of America’s strategic interests, domestic politics, and the wishes and demands of its regional allies.
Iran’s problems with America have structural and ideological sources: without addressing these issues and reaching some compromise, change in the in U.S. presidency would not resolve U.S.-Iran differences, although ad hoc agreements under certain conditions are possible. Had Hillary Clinton being elected in 2016, she most likely would have hardened U.S. policy towards Iran, even if she would not have withdrawn from the JCPOA. Let’s not forget that it was Clinton who worked to impose “crippling sanctions” on Iran and prevented an early agreement on its nuclear dossier by opposing the deal mediated by Turkey and Brazil in 2010. It was also she who threatened Iran with obliteration if it attacked Israel. American reaction to Iran’s nuclear ambitions have always been a symptom of their other differences, especially regarding Israel and America’s Arab allies. Even under Barack Obama, the signing of the JCPOA did not result in a marked improvement in bilateral relations. These facts are unlikely to change regardless of whoever is elected president in 2020.
Despite this history, Tehran is still hanging its hopes on Trump’s aversion to war and, failing that, his defeat in 2020. Yet, the United States would not advertise in advance any attack on Iran. Washington is adopting a strategy of unpredictability towards its enemies and rivals. This strategy will apply most of all to Iran.
Thus, war could occur as a result of either Tehran’s nerves giving way and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) doing something stupid, triggering an American response, a false flag operation by Iran’s regional rivals, or by a U.S. surprise attack. Iranians are also calculating that they could cause enough harm to Americans, which will force them an end to the war. They base this assumption on America’s desire to reduce its military engagements in the Middle East, plus popular opposition in America to another Middle East war. But Iranian leaders do not realize that sharply reducing or eliminating Iran’s military and economic power is deemed necessary for an eventual reduction of U.S. military presence in the Middle East. America is unlikely to leave the Middle East and allow Iran to fill the vacuum left by its departure.
Potential Losses for Iran and America
Another dangerous misconception in Tehran is that America, having spent trillions of dollars on war over the last 15 years and suffered significant human loss, would find the cost of war with Iran prohibitive. But this ignores the fact that a war with Iran will not resemble those in Afghanistan or Iraq. Today, Washington does not want to do the nation-building or democracy promotion it proclaimed for Afghanistan and Iraq. It wants is to eliminate any regional rivals and enemies, which it can do with a massive air war that destroys Iran’s military, economic, and infrastructural capabilities. It would limit its occupation of Iran to some of its Persian Gulf ports. No doubt, America, too, would have to pay a price, even a heavy price, but nothing compared to what Iran would pay. Fighting an asymmetric and attritional war as the Viet Cong did also would not be easy. During the Vietnam war, the USSR and China helped the North Vietnamese. It is highly unlikely that any outsider would similarly help Iran. Local states, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, would also be adversely affected. But Iran would still be the biggest loser.
According to some estimates, it could take Iran 40 years to recover from damage done by a potential American attack. This is assuming that the country will survive and will not be torn apart by a civil war, encouraged by its regional rivals and enemies. Thirty years after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Khuzestan province, which bore the brunt of the war. has not recovered from the damage it suffered.
Unfortunately, many Western commentators tend to encourage Tehran’s ostrich-like attitude. Sitting comfortably away from the scene of potential battle, they keep saying how damaging a war with Iran would be for America or that Iran is not Iraq. But let’s see what happened to Iraq. It lost several hundred thousand people, suffered a devastating civil war, its ethnic and religious fissures grew deeper, and it remains de facto divided. Or look at Afghanistan. It is still mired in a seemingly endless war, and the dreaded Taliban have made a serious comeback, which threatens to undo all Afghan gains. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is humming and its human losses, although lamentable, have not been anything like what those two countries have suffered.
At the moment, U.S.-Iran relations resemble a classic Greek tragedy. Both sides seem to be moved by uncontrollable passions and excessive pride toward a precipice while the rest of the world hopes for the best but fears the worst. Yet, this is real life, not a myth, and the fate of millions of Iranians is at stake. Therefore, silence and inaction are inexcusable. All who have a sway in Tehran and Washington must do what they can to stop this march towards war. One first step would be to stop feeding Iran’s illusions of its own abilities and American vulnerabilities in an eventual war.
Ms. Hunter seems to be getting things backward these days. She had an article earlier of how Iran would disintegrate, rather than its neighbors. The same logic applies here, it is the US that is the ostrich with its head in the ground. The Iranians have no choice but to try and get along with the US, but on a semi neutral ground. The US requires everyone to submit to its will. For the Glory of Rome type of dogma.
The Persians have survived massive chemical attack, coordinated by Mr. Rumsfield, and 8 years of relentless war with minimal supplies, while the Iraqis were given billions by the Saudis, chemical weapons by the Germans and US, plans by the French, missiles by the Russian, more money by Kuwaities, intelligence by US, more money by the Bahrainies, direct military engagement by US, etc. and the war only caused destruction- no winners.
No Iran has won the Syrian war, has Iraq (including about half of the Kurds) on its side, is having a field day, although minor credit goes to them, in Yemen, has Qatar on its side- who plays all sides, had Russia deeply involved with it, has China on board, has tiny but powerful Hezbollah of Lebanon and finally has Erdogan and Turkey on their side. Even Imran Khan of Pakistan visited Tehran recently to show his support for the gas pipe. Mr Pompeo and Bolton might not see this strong alliance, but the professional military certainly does.
Sending an aircraft carrier into the Persian gulf is a ‘dare’ by Bolton to Iran. Both sides know that the carrier and its support group are sitting ducks for Iran’s missiles- remember an earlier version destroyed an Israeli corvette in the Lebanese war. Hezbollah apparently had 3 missiles, Iran has hundreds. So it will be painful.
What has prevented the US going to war with Iran has not been the political or allied pressures but the military. In their simulations and studies, there are numerous scenarios that the Iranians do not lose and if they do not lose on paper, they will not lose in the field. Remember we won hands down in the Afghan and Iraq wars.
Perhaps Mr Hunter can do humanity a favor and visit Bolton and not that she will change his mind, but at least she can explain the pain he cause us who will have to go to war again.
Alistaire
You are underestimating IRG, they won in Iraq and in Syria.
You are also underestimating the precision and destructiveness of Iranian missiles; even in 2006 they could destroy or significantly damage the facilities in Ras Al Tanur and Al Aqaqiyah. Today’s attack in Fujaira was a warning shot and an indicator of things to come.
Yes, US can carpet bomb Iranian cities but she will leave the war as a diminished empire – the economic foundations of which destoyed.
By the way, there is a vaccine against carpet-bombing, it is thermobaric-armed missiles aimed at Haifa and Tel Aviv. Americans must choose: Tehran or Tel Aviv.
Your last paragraph while sensible, will not be pursued for the next 14 years at a minimum. Iranian strategy is to gradually remove their economic vulnerabilities before any new negogiations with US.
In the meantime, the Clash of Civizations between the West ( led by USA, its highest exponent) and Islam ( Iran being its highest exponent) will continue.
FYI
My dear friend FYI; thanks for reading my comments.
You appear to be a young Iranian fellow, full of nationalistic fever, eager to assert Iranian regional sovereignty; I certainly understand your feeling and I respect you for that.
But for the average Iranian families, peaceful men and women of Iran, the more relevant question is WHY ??? – Why Iran is always at the brink of war with some country; the US, Israel, Arab countries, and the rest of the neighbourhood.
Why for the last 40 years, Iran has always been in state of perpetual war – conflict at home and abroad – war at home against iranian core values, Persian culture and iranian historical mores; then wars aboard against our neighbours: Iraq and Arabs countries, Turkey, Pakistan, even Afghanistan and Azerbaijan who are essentially Persians, not to mention the Europeans and the rest of the world; what’s the matter with the Islamic Republic’s leadership, if there is anything as such in Iran.
One thing is certain, there is a total disconnect between the Ideological aspiration of the leadership in Islamic republic and peace loving ordinary Iranians; it looks as if the people are being taken hostage in their own homeland by a bunch of imported values that do not resonate with the ordinary Iranians who couldn’t care less about Shia or Sunnis, much less about the Zionists or the Jews.
So, let me ask you again “WHY ??? ” why such animosity against the Israelis who are actually very proud of their Persian heritage – after all, Esther, the wife of Cyrus the Great, she was the persian queen of the Jews, Esther is still buried in Hamedan, Iran – the Islamic Republic’s opposition to the state of israel appears to be the root cause of the all evil which has overtaken Iran in the last 40 years.
Then again, why such animosity against Americans; we all know too well that average Iranians love the American popular culture; Iranians are eager to come to their promised land “California” – they enjoy watching the American talk shows and sitcoms. so, why the heck such stupid animosity toward Americans. Please don’t bring up the Mosadegh demise and the Coup in 1953, that’s the most overused argument, it’s obsolete, so get over it !!!
So, let’s be honest about it, WHY such animosity against Americans and Israelis which cost Iranians so dearly over the last 40 years; this is the question that needs serious considerations, Ask yourself WHY ???
Alistaire
Why did your forefather not surrender in 1940, thus saving all those Englishmen?
I suppose, per your statements, the Russians should not have resisted the NAZIs, saving all those 25 million souls from premature death.
Iran has been repeatedly attacked by foreigners.
Iraqis did that, your country invaded us in spite of our declared neutrality, so did the Ottomans, and so did the Russians.
And just like kindergarte, the answer is the same: you started this. You and your Arabs.
In regards to Israel, when will they stop mudering Palestinian medics? Did some one force them to invade Lebanon and machine-gun women, children, old men? Or is it because they are entitled?
When are you and the French are going to pull your special forces out of Yemen? US does not need you there to help Saudis butcher Yemenis?
And your special forces in Syria, why are they helping terrorists?
Why such hostility to the Party of Ali?
The issue of Iranian territorial integrity is an old wound for most iranians that shouldn’t be reopened.
Iran has been shrinking for the last 2500 years, in modern era; especially since early 1800’s, Iran has lost the caucasus region to Russian empire, then Afghanistan to British-India, and more recently Bahrain to independence, So, Iran has been shrinking for the last 2500 years, it’s a bitter historical fact that most Iranians want to let at rest.
But Persians know too well the extent of their cultural borders, even though they lost the geographical territories, the ( Iranian Cultural Family ), the extent of Iranian cultural influence is much greater than its geographical borders which effectively extend from the west of China to the Balkans in Central Europe.
Foreign powers should be very careful to trying to reopen the old Iranian wounds, because they may be unpleasantly surprised to learn that Iran has its own claims over its recently lost territories under British and Russian pressure; starting with southern caucasus region since 1813. then Harat (part of Afghanistan) since 1856, and more recently Bahrain since 1971.
The issue of Iranian territorial integrity is an old wound that shouldn’t be toyed with, because it has very powerful galvanizing effect on most Iranians – much deeper than Shia faith or Revolutionary Islam. Foreign powers better not gambling with Iranian territorial integrity, they will regret it.