Trump is snookered on Iran. Walking away may be his least worst option – The Age
You have reached your maximum number of saved items.
Remove items from your saved list to add more.
Washington: Iran has delivered its response to the US’s one-page pitch for peace, and it’s not good.
“I don’t like it – TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” was Donald Trump’s appraisal of the Iranians’ position.
Quelle surprise.
For weeks, the US president has teased of an imminent deal with Iran to end the war, based on the claim that Iran has been summarily defeated on the battlefield; its air force destroyed and its navy at the bottom of the gulf.
Experts on Iran, however, have consistently warned that military victory does not necessarily translate to strategic triumph. They have argued that Trump and his coterie of diplomatic novices fundamentally misunderstand the Iranian regime – which, contrary to their assertions, still stands.
One often extends Trump the benefit of the doubt – he has humbled the foreign policy establishment before – but only for so long. Despite the US turning the screws on Tehran with a naval blockade and a new wave of economic sanctions, the regime is not buckling.
“Iran does not believe it lost this confrontation,” said Danny Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran branch of the Israeli military’s intelligence unit.
“Iran has no intention of capitulating or accepting Washington’s demands – not now, and not in the foreseeable future.”
That leaves Trump with three choices: make a suite of ugly concessions that would leave him accused of settling for a deal worse than Barack Obama’s 2015 agreement with Iran, restart the bombing in the hope of ousting the regime or forcing a better deal, or simply walking away.
Trump has certainly laid the groundwork for the latter. We have heard him say over and over that the war has been won, the Iranian regime has been changed – and even more explicitly, that if the US left now, it would take Iran 20 years to rebuild.
There was also a Reuters report two weeks ago that said US intelligence agencies were analysing the likely consequences of Trump simply declaring mission accomplished and drawing down troops.
That might be the least worst option. The US could credibly say it inflicted a lot of damage and set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions again, while reserving the right to revisit the matter down the track.
The only problem is the Strait of Hormuz, and whether it can be prised open through force in the absence of a deal. That is no small-fry matter.
On the other hand, we know who is urging Trump to recommence strikes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave an interview to CBS’s 60 Minutes noting there was still “work to be done” in Iran, including seizing its highly enriched uranium and destroying its nuclear facilities once and for all.
Iran hawks in US Congress, such as Republican senators Roger Wicker and Lindsey Graham, are telling Trump to at least restart Project Freedom, the short-lived effort to guide ships through the Strait of Hormuz.
“Mr President, you have been generously patient with the murderous Iranian Islamist regime. Now, let’s get back to business,” Wicker said. Graham said it was “time to consider changing course”.
While always keeping on the table further military action, Trump has been reluctant to go down that path. Not only is the war unpopular with Americans, but he would have to answer the question of what fresh strikes would achieve that was not achieved in the first 37 days of intense bombing.
By delaying its inevitably unsatisfactory response, which was initially going to come last week, Iran has also forced Trump into an awkward position in the days before his important trip to China.
Restarting strikes could jeopardise the visit. But arriving in Beijing without a credible path forward and asking Chinese President Xi Jinping for help in corralling the Iranians looks weak.
A senior US official said Trump would probably pressure Xi to curb the sale of dual-use components and potential weapons to Iran, as he had done in the past.
“I expect that conversation to continue,” the official said on a phone call with reporters on Sunday (US time). “You’ve seen some actions, meaning sanctions, coming out from the US side in the last few days that I’m sure will be part of that conversation.
“I would expect the president to apply pressure … he has done so before.”
Vali Nasr, an Iran expert and professor of international affairs at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, noted that applying such pressure on Xi would not be easy.
The Chinese would seek to extract something in return for their help, Nasr said on X – and they could still say no. The Beijing summit would then be “another casualty of the war”.
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.
You have reached your maximum number of saved items.
Remove items from your saved list to add more.
More: