The Middle East Conflict

By Shashi P. B. B. Malla

What Trump Unleashed by Striking Iran

Trump may have changed the course of Middle East geopolitics by striking Iran’s nuclear sites directly, but the strikes did set a dangerous precedent – and might not be enough to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, anyway.

The prominent CNN-anchor Fareed Zakaria writes in his latest Washington Post column: “Whatever one speculates about Iran’s future intentions, it did not have a weaponized nuclear programme” when the US struck.

US intelligence “has been clear on this time and again, and I have seen no contrary evidence…

“So, the United States launched an unprovoked attack against a sovereign state, without United Nations or even congressional sanction…

“That kind of unilateral military action should not be undertaken lightly…

“It’s easy to cheer when Washington does it, but how will we feel when China does it?...[Perhaps in Taiwan?] 

“How do we feel about Russia doing just that in Ukraine?”

For that reason, a diplomatic solution – a new nuclear accord with Iran, which Trump had been pursuing before Israel launched an air campaign against Iran earlier this month – would have been much better.

And there’s another reason why successful negotiations would have been preferable to military strikes: despite the damage those US strikes inflicted, Iran might now simply attempt to build a nuclear weapon in secret.

Striking Iran “could be justified if it leads to a strengthening of nuclear non-proliferation – a warning to those who might cross the line,” Zakaria writes.

“but that requires a political settlement of the issue in a way that is stable and acceptable to both sides, or else we merely have a ceasefire.”

Will Iran’s Regime Survive?

Iran’s revolutionary Islamic regime has perhaps never been weaker.

But as Richard Haass (former President of the Council on Foreign Relations) wrote for Project Syndicate after US strikes and President Donald Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire, Iran nonetheless may now secretly race to build a nuclear bomb, given that other methods of deterrence have failed.

“This reality will lead many to argue that nothing short of regime change will prevent the eventual emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran,” wrote.  

“But regime change is easier said than done.”

Observers have seen no signs of a popular uprising to unseat Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – and have noted that Iran lacks any clear alternatives to the longstanding order. Given all that, will the regime hold on?

Despite state repression, Iranians have protested before.

When war recedes as a threat, they could do so again.

“The stunning scope of the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes over the past ten days proves that the theocracy can no longer deliver the protection it promises,” writes The New Yorker’s Robin Wright.

“Utopian, religious, and ideological revolutions have only so much staying power if they fail to meet their absolutist goals and their publics’ lofty expectations…

“All aspects of life in Iran are now growing worse, Mohammad Taghi Karroubi, a lawyer and the son of the former speaker of parliament Mehdi Karroubi, told me…

For now, though, Iranian citizens ‘prefer to be silent’ because of the U.S. and Israeli aggression. ‘The day after the aggression,’ he said, ‘they will start to talk. They will start to criticize the system.

The Key to Peace With Iran?...Trust

“For Trump, this is arguably the biggest foreign policy win of his second term to date,” Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer writes for his outlet, GZero Media, of Trump’s strikes on Iran and subsequent declaration of an Israel-Iran ceasefire.

“The President can take credit for degrading Iran’s nuclear programme and enabling Israel to severely degrade its military and ballistic capabilities, all with no blowback to the US and without getting dragged into a broader war…So far, the gamble seems to have paid off.”

But for the reasons Haass and others have identified, the hard work of strategy and diplomacy – all designed to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in secret – may have just begun, Bremmer writes.

“That’s the thing: the military option was never a permanent solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions .  .  .

“That was true before this war and it’s true now .  .  .

“You can bomb the program back a few years, but unless you’re prepared to keep bombing them indefinitely, the only real way to stop Iran from building a nuke is to get them to sign a deal.”

So, how can Iran be stopped from going nuclear, or causing regional mayhem, over the medium and long terms?

In a Foreign Affairs essay, Jennifer Kavanagh and Rosemary Kelanic of the think tank Defense Priorities write that the key lies in a particular part of deterrence: the credibility of reassurances.

“The challenge that the Trump administration faces now is not with the severity of the threats it has issued but with the credibility of the assurances it can provide to Iran’s regime,” they write.

“For Trump’s coercive approach to diplomacy to work in pushing Iran into a strong nuclear deal, two things are necessary .  .  .

“First, the United States must issue believable threats to impose significant and painful consequences id Iran ignores or violates U.S. demands .  .  .

“Trump has done that .  .  . These warnings and actions, however, may still have limited impact on Iranian behaviour without the second requirement:

“Meaningful U.S. assurances that Iran won’t suffer the threatened consequences – or other repercussions – if it acquiesces to U.S.  demands .  .  .

“Iran’s leaders need to believe that if their country bends the United States won’t try to break it.”  

Iran’s Ayatollah is playing the long game

Under this title, Vali R. Nasr, professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advance International Studies, has written a thought-provoking op-ed in The New York Times about the Supreme Leader’s long-term game plan (June 30).

Khamenei is leaving it deliberately ambiguous to the United States and its allies, especially Israel whether his regime has the military capacity, domestic strength and political endurance to sustain a war of attrition [which Trump fears].

According to Nasr; “Iran’s calculations will greatly depend on its assessment of how much its nuclear program has survived the U.S. bombing and whether it can turn its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium into nuclear weapons.”

The writer can be reached at:

ShashiMalla125@gmail.com