Which Way Will the Crisis Move?
Which Way Will the Crisis Move?
By Masoud Sadrmohammadi
Over the past two weeks, Iran’s political and economic atmosphere has become unusually tense. Trump directly blamed Iran for the events unfolding in the Gulf of Aden, citing its support for the Houthis, and proceeded to bomb Yemen. For the first time, he also held the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran personally responsible for the situation.
Meanwhile, a letter described as respectful in tone but threatening in content was sent to Iran via the United Arab Emirates. Unlike Qatar and Oman—countries that previously acted as mediators between Iran and the United States—the UAE does not maintain friendly relations with Iran. In recent years, territorial disputes between the two countries have become a serious issue. The use of the UAE, instead of nations with more amicable ties to Iran, was seen in Iran as a sign of Trump’s hostility and ill will toward the country.
In any case, although Iran has announced it will respond to Trump’s letter in the coming days, reports about the content of the letter suggest that Trump has given Iran a two-month window to enter negotiations. This indicates that Iran now faces a clear choice: either war or negotiation with Trump.
The military operations in Yemen, Gaza, and Syria, the frequent reconnaissance flights over the Persian Gulf, and the reciprocal visits of Israeli and American military command teams all reflect U.S. efforts to pressure Iran and demonstrate its seriousness.
Lessons from Trump’s Pressure on Iran
Although Trump’s pressure on Iran was not unexpected, and everyone was anticipating new pressures against Iran with Trump’s return to the White House, the speed of action and the serious consideration of the option of attacking Iran have significant lessons for understanding the decision-making mechanism in the White House.
First and foremost, Trump’s type of activism showed that he continues the interventionist approach in US foreign policy all over the world. Contrary to his campaign slogans, which claimed that he would refrain from costly and troublesome interventions in various parts of the world that only result in spending American taxpayers’ money outside the country’s borders, he has now embarked on a serious risk in the Middle East region.
This interventionism of Trump in the Middle East, on the one hand, indicates the weak infrastructure of power and politics in this region, and on the other hand, it shows how much the Israeli lobby in Washington can influence the work priorities of US presidents. While normally Trump should now prioritize confronting China, simply because of the activities of the Israeli lobby and Netanyahu’s efforts to maintain his power in Tel Aviv, Trump has drawn himself and the United States into a complicated case.
What is Trump trying to achieve?
Trump is currently trying to demonstrate that he is not bluffing by exerting maximum pressure and striking at Iran’s interests. A group of politicians in Tehran, particularly among the conservatives, believe that the Americans are masters of bluffing and should not be intimidated by their threats. They argue that if Iran can withstand American pressure for a short period, the US will have no choice but to back down from its current policy. In their view, the US is merely testing Iran’s tolerance threshold, and Iran needs to demonstrate its resilience. In contrast to this viewpoint, Trump is now attempting to convey through official letters, unofficial messages, and numerous media interviews that his “negotiate or war” stance is serious.
Furthermore, the US is introducing new issues into the negotiation agenda with Iran. While the nuclear issue has been the primary focus of Iran-West negotiations, Trump has also raised the issues of the Resistance Front and Iran’s missile industry as topics for negotiation. This move reflects the extent of the Israeli lobby’s influence in Washington. In essence, Israel has convinced Trump that solely addressing the nuclear issue is insufficient to genuinely neutralize Iran’s global influence. To ensure Israel’s long-term security and eliminate Iran’s international impact, the US must focus on Iran’s two potent and successful tools: its advanced missile industry and its support for resistance groups in the Middle East. Consequently, Trump has included these two issues in the negotiations with Iran. His rhetoric regarding the Houthi group in Yemen, holding Iran responsible for their actions, also underscores this policy.
It is natural that Iran will not engage in any negotiations regarding its missile industry, which will further complicate the future landscape.
What is the worst-case scenario?
Although Iran has not yet given a definitive answer regarding not negotiating with the United States, and the possibility of Iran moving towards secret and limited negotiations with the United States is high, based on the principle of considering the worst-case scenarios, attention in Tehran is now focused more on the possible blows that Trump can inflict on Iran in the event of moving towards a hard confrontation.
Attention to the literature of think tanks close to Tel Aviv indicates the fact that the Israeli lobby in Washington has focused on the weakness of Iran’s deterrent capability. From the Israeli point of view, Iran has now lost the ability to supply solid fuel for its missiles, and Iran’s defense system has also suffered severe blows. On the other hand, significant infiltrations have occurred in Iran’s security system, of which the assassination of Haniyeh and various assassinations before that were indicative. Therefore, the United States should not feel more threatened than Iran’s capacity regarding Iran’s possible responses.
Given this approach, Tehran is preparing itself for a combined attack against it. In this combined attack, the assassination of influential figures of the regime, activating social fault lines in Iran with the aim of street riots and creating the necessary space for insecurity in Iran, using terrorist groups, especially in the surrounding areas of the country, serious sabotage that disrupts the government or daily life in Iran, and finally, severe blows to Iran’s military and economic infrastructure can all be part of this combined attack against Iran.
From the point of view of Iranian analysts, heavy pressure to cut Iran’s oil exports is aimed at directly pressuring the urban middle class in Iran so that in the coming summer, the government will be unable to meet the needs of this population, and they will also move towards street riots.
Is Trump Really Seeking War?
Trump is undoubtedly very serious in confronting Iran, but this does not mean that Trump is truly prepared for war with Iran. Because war with Iran can have significant unexpected and unplanned consequences for the United States in various parts of the world and the Middle East. These unexpected consequences will take significant time and energy from the United States and will make Trump unsuccessful in pursuing his main strategies, namely controlling China and Russia, not taking on Europe’s security costs, and focusing on spending American taxes in the United States itself. It is with this fact in mind that negotiation is definitely more preferable for Trump than war, and Trump will use it as a success in his domestic policy if he can reach even a simple agreement with Iran that lacks strategic achievements.
Trump is trying to extract maximum concessions from Iran and avoid the risk of war.
What Can Iran Do?
Iran is in a difficult situation. The crisis of the national currency’s devaluation on the one hand, and the decline in oil sales on the other, will create a very difficult summer for Iran. The vulnerable situation caused by economic, monetary, oil, and security blows has weakened Iran’s hand in responding seriously to Trump’s threats. However, despite this, Iran is trying not to put itself in a state of being a restrained element in dealing with Trump. Some analysts believe that Iran’s cautious behavior in the Gaza and Lebanon war has led the United States and Israel to understand Iran as a restrained element. Therefore, Iran must change this approach.
On the other hand, Iran faces another serious problem, namely the lack of proactive scenarios. This situation has also made it difficult for countries such as China and Russia, which are known as Iran’s teammates, to help Iran.
Iran does not show a serious political will to negotiate directly and without intermediaries with the United States, which has reduced Tehran’s political flexibility. It seems that Iran will start engaging with the United States using the method of confidential and limited negotiations on the nuclear issue.