After five decades of conflict, Iran under the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei constituted a “clear and present danger” to the West. The notion proffered by some that there needed to be an imminent threat to trigger military action only invites future tragedy. With this said, while the administration’s decision to attack Iran appears to be justified, it appears to have lacked strategic vision and failed to adequately prepare for predictable outcomes, including Iran’s efforts to impede traffic through the strait.
Iran’s response to the U.S. and Israeli attacks confirms its resourcefulness and unrelenting commitment to self-preservation and regional hegemony. If permitted to reconstitute, there is little doubt that it will do so with vigor and tenaciousness in concert with its coterie of allies, who have demonstrated their continued willingness to support the regime.
Although Russia, China, and North Korea appear to have exercised some restraint to date, we can expect that they will expand their assistance as the regime moves to rebuild its capabilities from the ashes. As a result, simply declaring victory without substantive progress on the issues will result in significant future danger.
TRUMP’S IRAN WAR IS PREVENTING A NORTH KOREA CRISIS
Regarding Iran’s declared right to enrichment, it is important to recognize that with the planet’s second-largest proven reserves of natural gas, Iran has never required a civilian nuclear program to supply domestic electric energy. As a result, unless one wishes to argue that the regime was seeking a supply of clean energy to address climate change, its apparent continued insistence on having a nuclear program must either reflect unrelenting nationalism and/or a now solidified view of the necessity of a nuclear deterrent against future attack.
However, Iran could have outsize regional influence, a global leading economy, and even a nuclear program if it were to join the community of peaceful nations by resetting its goals of regional hegemony, destruction of Israel, attacks on the West, and fostering Shia radicalism. So much for the rhetoric of Iran’s foreign minister, who asserts that Iran’s rights are being trampled upon by a sanctimonious West.
Although it would seem that the new regime is composed of many Guard stalwarts, there is some indication that there could be fertile ground among more “practical” elements in the Guard’s leadership that have grown satisfied with their lives running major Iranian enterprises and institutions. As a result, while these generals will not likely abide by embarrassing capitulation, there is a possibility for a settlement that would feature meaningful changes to Iranian policies while maintaining the status quo of the Guard’s control.
Possibly, the contours could include public provisions involving a cessation in hostilities, freedom of navigation, sanctions relief, and transfer of nuclear materials, and informal ones dealing with Iranian support for its regional proxies, limitations on drone and missile deployment, as well as Iranian relations with Russia, China, and North Korea. These reforms could conceivably be implemented over time, analogously to what appears to be occurring in Venezuela, where there was no public disclosure of the detailed terms of settlement.
While the prospect of any settlement has looked fairly dismal, the regime’s most recent offer and its focus on removing the blockade indicates that halting Iranian exports is having a discernible impact. If so, this constitutes an important “chink in the armor” of the regime that holds the prospect that additional pressure, including extending the blockade to imports, enforcing sanctions against Yuan denominated trade, and categorizing all major Iranian ports as sanctioned facilities, might induce even more flexibility as oil and gas production is curtailed, industrial and commercial enterprises slow or otherwise suspend operations, including the Guard’s run businesses, and inflationary pressures grow.
TRUMP WEIGHING PULLING TROOPS FROM ITALY AND SPAIN OVER UNWILLINGNESS TO HELP WITH IRAN
Further, while the administration has unsuccessfully sought to implement deterrence doctrine by using extreme rhetoric around destroying Iranian civilization, the reality is that Iran’s energy, civil, IT, and other infrastructure can be disabled, much without the destruction of critical core facilities. For example, power plants can be forced to shutter by disabling fuel supply, storage, and logistics or substations without destroying the actual power generation facilities. This is important because the reconstruction of a so-called balance of plant can be accomplished much faster than the replacement of highly engineered equipment, much of which may need to be imported.
Clear, credible, and consistent messaging laying out carefully crafted and selective consequences and demonstrating a willingness to act decisively could go a long way toward convincing regime leadership that it does not hold much in the way of “cards.”
Michael Schwartz is an energy sector executive and former Gerhard R. Andlinger Visiting Professor in Energy and Environmental Studies at Princeton University.