-Analysis-
U.S. policy toward Iran has long vacillated between exerting pressure and engaging in talks. Some see this neverending see-saw as a sign of the United States’ confusion over what to do with a regime that is, on the one hand, threatening and unreliable, and on the other, at the heart of a region that is a repository of energy resources.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
Yet the seeming inconsistency in U.S. policies toward Tehran are in fact part of a carefully conceived plan to rid itself of a big headache that can simply be labeled: the Ayatollahs.
The United States is in reality playing a ‘great powers game’ with the regime born of the 1979 Iranian revolution. It looks like they are talking, but the conversations are likely intended to prepare world opinion for the regime’s removal, perhaps by military action.
The game is being played in close collaboration with the United States’ regional ally Israel, and being accelerated by the return to the White House of Donald Trump.
America and Israel are inching toward the martial option because experience of dealing with the Islamic Republic, and reaching agreements like the 2015 nuclear pact, have shown that any deal with the regime is at best a stop-gap solution and may actually encourage its furtive and secretive nuclear activities.
For Trump, it’s personal
Under the Democratic President Barack Obama, the United States adhered in good faith to a pact between Iran and the West, but Tehran’s opaque habits, the absence of effective verification mechanisms served to permanently undermine Western confidence.
The first Trump administration’s abandonment of the 2015 pact was not a symbolic gesture, but a reaction to a stark reality.
The first Trump administration’s abandonment of the 2015 pact was not a symbolic gesture, but a reaction to that stark reality. It bore a simple message to the world: the Islamic Republic cannot be trusted, nor will it ever voluntarily abandon its program.
A recurring question since Trump returned to the White House is: does he really want an agreement – a deal – with the ayatollahs, or is there a plan behind the talks being held right now?
The answer is hidden in Trump’s words and conduct. He has repeated that his goal is to prevent the regime from accessing nuclear weapons, but that is by now a clichéd statement even the Democrats would make. Trump is in fact much angrier with this regime than his predecessors, for both ideological and political, and personal reasons.
When he addresses the regime, he sees an outfit that has not only undermined the stability of the Middle East but has even, possibly, sought to eliminate Trump physically. He knows, there is no talking or getting along with a party that just might have killed you.
Information released by U.S. intelligence sources has shown that the Iranian regime did indeed seek to eliminate Trump and certain members of his first administration — like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton — in retaliation for the Jan. 3, 2020 U.S strike on one of its top military commanders, Qasem Suleimani. This has been taken not just as a threat, but also a personal affront. So if there is anyone in the Western world seeking to topple the Tehran regime, that person is Trump. Which would turn the current talks in Muscat and Rome into a tactical spectacle designed to buy the United States time to carry that out.
The United States needs to complete several stages before it engages in a large-scale military operation. These include: making military preparations in the region, winning the backing of European allies, building up a case to justify and legitimize its action and finally, enacting a lightning attack with maximum impact to destroy the regime’s nuclear and military infrastructures.
Trump has begun negotiations, to pave the way for war.
This might be the time to implement a plan devised a good while back. Unlike the Biden presidency, which relied on diplomacy and multilateral solutions, the Trump team sees no utility in talking to regimes like the Islamic Republic. The president said while campaigning that he would leave the diplomatic door open if elected, but only to show that the regime could not accept the United States’ conditions. Trump has thus begun negotiations, to pave the way for war.
It is an old tactic, and effective. The United States will try and show it is not a gratuitous warmonger. There will be several rounds of talks without clear revelations about what was discussed, at the end of which Iran can be derided as uncooperative or unreasonable. The first Trump administration kept saying the Iranians could not be trusted, and they’ll likely say the same thing again, though perhaps with starkly different consequences.
More than nuclear
The key point here is that the scenario is not designed strictly to stop Iran accessing a nuclear bomb. Because if that were the aim, a stricter version of the 2015 pact would suffice, with closer checks and tighter scrutiny over Iran’s nuclear activities.
Instead Trump and his team believe the problem goes further, and deeper, than checking on Iranian infrastructures. The Tehran regime does not merely pose a nuclear threat, but is at the heart of a terrorist network spanning the world. Its tentacles – in the form of proxy militias, sleeper cells, lone agents or financial actors — spread beyond Iraq, Syria or the Levant to Africa and Latin America.
So, would an Islamic Republic stripped of its nuclear program make the Middle East safe again? Clearly not, as the regime has engaged in multiple forms of trafficking and meddling in the politics of its neighbors and beyond, which would make a nuclear pact not just useless in that respect, but positively dangerous. It could lend legitimacy to one of the world’s premier sponsors of terrorism.
The first two months of the Trump administration have shown a marked increase in U.S. military activity in the Middle East, notably of the preparative sort, going beyond anything one might term routine or ordinary. They suggest the superpower is readying itself for a big intervention, and more specifically, to take out the Iranian regime’s military capabilities at short notice.
The Pentagon and Israeli military have engaged in an unprecedented level of coordination in recent weeks. It may be that plans to strike Iranian military and nuclear sites have been finalized, with even a division of roles between participants. The United States may go for military and air defense targets, while Israel goes for sensitive, nuclear sites.
Maneuvers, preparations and the aforementioned cooperation suggest that this action is not some last resort but part of a strategic decision possibly taken years ago. The stakes were always clear for Israel: the regime in Tehran is an essential threat to its existence and has repeatedly stated, and physically shown, its unrelenting hostility to the state of Israel. Arming Hezbollah in Lebanon, and aiding and financing Palestinian militant groups including the Hamas or Houthis of Yemen, are just some of the signs of this undying hatred.
Irredeemable threat
The United States has in turn concluded Iran is an irredeemable threat to the region and to the West’s allies, notably the monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Whatever their positions in public, states like Bahrein or the Saudi kingdom are quietly supportive of the military option, knowing that an Islamic Republic with nuclear weapons would upend the power balance across the Middle East.
Before anything can be done then, the United States must show the world it tried talks and is not waging war on a country that wants to talk. It needs opinion to believe, if it will, that Iran is not interested in a deal — the right deal — and left the United States and its allies with no choice but a strike.
Trump knows there is no need for a global consensus to strike Iran, but you still need a plausible argument
It did this before, prior to invading Iraq and Afghanistan some 20 years ago. There was a bit of talking then too, diplomatic initiatives and the like, before the other side was depicted as irredeemably threatening and in need of massive military strikes!
Trump knows there is no need for a global consensus to strike Iran, but you still need a plausible argument. The Iranian regime must be shown to have “blown” all the options. The first round of talks, held in Muscat, was accompanied by positive news, like speaking of progress being made or citing the possibility of unblocking some of Iran’s frozen monies. This is part of the scenario to show that the regime will never change its conduct.
People of Iran
Perhaps the most important element here is the people of Iran. Trump and his advisers see the regime as an enemy not just of the regime but of Iranians. A string of protests, most recently in 2022, has shown that a good portion of the Iranian population has rejected the regime, so Trump might seek to complement strikes with moves to foment civil unrest, believing Iranians will topple the regime if they can see the world is behind them. As I say, the plan is at least as old as the first Trump administration.
The signs are that a long period of appeasement has come to an end. After looking the other way, for decades, the resolve is now not to curb, but end, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Western powers, the Arabs and the people of Iran seem to have reached a consensus. The Trump administration and its allies want to wipe away the regime’s military, intelligence and terrorist capabilities. It’s a big goal, with modest beginnings in the form of quiet talks in Oman.
Israel has also shown it has run out of patience. Its strikes and attacks of the past year on neighboring countries, and a longer period of clandestine activities inside Iran, suggest it has prepared itself for the final blow. Likely with a mix of trepidation, even alarm, and hopes, numerous Iranians may be waiting to see the end of a hated regime.
History’s verdict on such a bold intervention would depend on its outcome. For now, we’re at a more specific point: the turnaround in the Western approach to Iran’s revolutionary regime. Trump, with his impetuous, erratic and even reckless side, hasn’t come to sign a piece of paper with the mullahs of Tehran, but to tell them out loud: You’re fired.
