The ‘brinkmanship’ strategy with Iran: A calculated approach |
Over the past month, events in the region have escalated and expanded significantly, as Israel and the United States attempt to establish new control and balances after two and a half years of continuous wars and unrest. After calming the conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and Yemen, attention has turned to reaping the benefits, and Iran has become the target. It remains a significant opposing force to Washington and Israel’s regional policies, without having been decisively defeated. The United States and Israel are threatening to launch a new war against it if it does not agree to their demands. These demands revolve around halting Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile development, and its support for armed regional groups.
Over the past month, the protagonists and negotiating parties have been pressing hard, each trying to secure the best possible outcome in what appears to be a decisive battle. Analyses vary on the likelihood of a powerful US military strike against Iran that would completely dismantle the Islamic Republic, thus eliminating the Iranian opposition front at its roots, or an agreement with Iran that would neutralise its threat for years to come. Israel makes no secret of its desire to eradicate the Iranian regime and favours a devastating US war against Iran. Israel is not in favour of the diplomatic and negotiating track initiated earlier this month between Washington and Tehran. It insists on decisive results on the three issues related to the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and Iran’s support for its allies, a demand that seems difficult to fulfil. Disarming Tehran of its conventional missile arsenal, which it has been developing since its war with Iraq, is a daunting prospect, especially in a region surrounded by traditional rivals. While Trump made no secret of his desire to overthrow the Iranian regime and supported the protests that intensified last month against it, the regime’s resilience, its survival, and the results that reflect the failure of relying on that approach have paved the way for Washington’s next attempt.
The cost of the devastating wars waged by Washington on Afghanistan and Iraq continues to burden the American economy, reaching an estimated $8 trillion.
The US military buildup in the region began at the end of last month, with the deployment of a larger arsenal than during the 12-day war last year. In a deliberate move, Washington indicated that it has amassed an air force arsenal superior to that of the 2003 Iraq War. The United States periodically announces the evacuation of its personnel or urges its citizens to leave countries in the region. American reports have also recently indicated Washington’s readiness to withdraw its forces from Syria, although this is not linked to any upcoming war in the region. Washington recently contacted Iraq, demanding the need to control the presence of weapons and armed groups in the country. This comes amidst negotiations between Washington and Tehran, which began immediately following the US military buildup in the region. The first round of negotiations began in Muscat at the beginning of this month, followed by another round in Geneva approximately two weeks later, without any of them achieving tangible progress. During the second round, Trump threatened, that Iran had two weeks to decide during the negotiations whether to reach an understanding or pay the price.
READ: Why does Iran persist on nuclear enrichment?
Conversely, Iran is also using its leverage to strengthen its negotiating position, but it makes no secret of its reluctance to engage in another war with the United States. Iran chose the day the second round of negotiations with the United States began to announce a temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, under the pretext of military exercises. This raised concerns about the possibility of such a scenario unfolding in the event of war, especially given the strait’s importance as a transit point for a fifth of the world’s oil and a significant amount of its gas. The announcement of a deal to purchase advanced missiles from China at this time does not appear to be a coincidence, just as the recent talk of another arms deal with Russia. Iran, too, is invoking elements of its power as a deterrent or obstacle to war, even as it affirms its readiness to wage war and respond forcefully to any aggression.
Despite all these developments, three factors make a full-scale war with Iran unlikely. First, diplomacy appears to be Washington’s preferred path, and even the limited war it threatens is merely another pressure tactic to force an agreement with Iran. Second, Tehran is facing a number of vulnerabilities, particularly at this time, following the damage to its nuclear capabilities in the last war, internal unrest due to recent protests, economic difficulties stemming from the tightening of US and Western sanctions, the effects of its recent involvement in the war, and the weakening of its regional allies.
Perhaps the first and most important reason is the exorbitant cost of war, especially since estimates of the cost of the devastating wars waged by Washington on Afghanistan and Iraq continue to burden the American economy, reaching an estimated $8 trillion. This factor is compounded by the inability to decisively win the war and topple the regime through air power alone, necessitating an invasion similar to that of Iraq, which is extremely complicated for Washington, particularly after a previous experience that was not generally viewed favourably.
A full-blown war could cause a shock to oil prices, and US stock prices would be subject to sharp fluctuations, inflation, and a negative impact on economic growth.
The second factor is no less important than the first: the widespread and multifaceted rejection of war, but not by Israel which desires and supports it. The American front, represented by major think tanks, public opinion, and the legislative branch of government that influences decision-making, rejects Washington’s involvement in a comprehensive and decisive war against Iran, especially due to the huge economic cost. Think tanks tend to emphasise the price of such a war for Washington and the lack of any Iranian threat to the United States. These centers see this as an opportunity to urge Washington to implement its strategy of military withdrawal from the region. These centers are of particular importance to American policymakers, who rely on their reports and research in developing plans and formulating policies. American legislative bodies also listen to reports from these centers in specialised hearings. The majority of the American public does not hesitate to reject war with Iran, as recent opinion polls indicate. Outside of the American sphere, key regional countries reject an American war on Iran, and even Washington’s attempts to overthrow its regime. This stance unites different fronts, as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Turkey all reject the war and intervene with Washington to persuade it to avoid it.
READ: Tehran’s calculated wager
The third factor is related to the economic aspect, which US President Donald Trump is particularly focused on, and which may also explain the current US actions. The current calculated escalation, which has been ongoing throughout the negotiations, coupled with the accumulation of pressure factors, ensures a continuous rise in oil prices. This automatically leads to a rise in the dollar’s value, an increase in the share prices of energy and arms companies, and a calculated, fluctuating decline in other stock prices. However, a full-blown war could cause a shock to oil prices, and US stock prices would be subject to sharp fluctuations, inflation, and a negative impact on economic growth. If we connect this to Trump’s rhetoric, which bases the success of his policies on a rising dollar, strong growth in US stock prices, and a reduction in costly wars, the rationale behind prolonging the current tension in the region becomes clear.
Maintaining a calculated state of tension with Iran in the region ensures increased political pressure and maximizes the number of military and political concessions extracted from Tehran. While negotiations initially focused on concessions regarding the nuclear issue, Trump now speaks of the threat posed by Iranian ballistic missiles to Washington, a claim far removed from reality. Furthermore, this state of tension provides immediate gains for the American economy.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.