Drums of war
25/5/19 07:40![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
airiefairie posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIf there is one certain thing about president Trump, it is that in his foreign policy he has been entirely consistent with his temperament and his election promises. He always acts the same way, even if it is the stupidest and most inexplicable way. From Europe to China to North Korea and Iran, his tactic is the same: exert maximum pressure while claiming to be open for negotiation - provided that the other side plays by your rules. The current escalation with Iran is no exception from this gambling approach. The risk of course is that any misstep from either side could bring a real clash of unprecedented proportions. But with great risk comes great reward as they say, or at least that seems to be the driving motivation behind Trump's actions at the international stage.
Things went from bad to worse with Iran, after Trump decided to bring the Iranian oil exports to zero, and reinforce the US military presence in the Gulf because of, in his own words, "indications for imminent Iranian threat". Last year he scrapped the nuclear deal, and amped up sanctions against countries dealing with Iran. He brought back all restrictions on Iran, even though Iran was honouring the deal at the time, aiming to suffocate the Iranian oil exports and force them to accept his new conditions. And now we see the military presence in the Gulf reaching levels that make it all look like a war is coming up.
Iran's supreme leader Khamenei said there won't be a war with the US, despite the tensions about his country's nuclear capabilities, their missile program and their support for proxies like Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. But he was also adamant that Iran would not be negotiating with the US on the nuclear deal, despite the heavy blow on their economy from the sanctions (the IMF forecasts a 6% GDP slump and 37% inflation for this year). Secretary of State Pompeo also said the US doesn't seek war with Iran, but they would respond if the US interests are threatened, whatever that means. Trump denied any plans for sending 120 thousand troops to the region, saying he was hoping there would be no need of that, but if that need arises, the number would be "much bigger".
The situation got even hotter when Saudi Arabia claimed Iranian drones had sabotaged two pumping stations of a big pipeline, a couple of days after several oil tankers were also sabotaged in UAE waters. The US intelligence says it was proxies working on Iran's behalf, and warned that they are preparing for "future threats for the US forces in Iraq" by Iran-supported groups. Last week part of the US embassy staff in Baghdad was evacuated.
Trump is threatening Iran that they would "suffer greatly if they do something". But it is very unlikely that verbal threats and sabre-rattling of this sort would somehow make Iran give up. This is Persia that we are talking about, a massive and proud nation that did not give up during the bloodbath of the Iran-Iraq war, and it won't give up now. What's more, they could even double down and renew their nuclear capabilities, leaving the US with no other option but to respond to the challenge. The question is, does Trump really need and want a war just as the presidential election campaign is looming. Perhaps yes - every US president has waged at least one war during their term for the last few decades, this has become something like a tradition at this point. It certainly did not stop Bush Jr from getting re-elected. And it might be exactly what the Republican base needs right now.
The situation could actually serve both sides of this conflict as hardliners both in Iran and the US are rubbing their hands with delight. Iran has warned that they would no longer honour their commitments as per the nuclear deal, now that the US has unilaterally and inexplicably decided to scrap it. In turn, this provides the hawks in Washington and Arlington like John Bolton more reason to harden their position. In this situation, even relatively moderate Iranian president Rowhani who was a staunch supporter of the nuclear deal, has been compelled to start sounding like a hawk. And there is a concern that Bolton is trying to pressure both Trump and Iran into the corner, and leave them with no option but to start a war. For years Bolton has made it very clear that he believes the only way to eliminate the Iranian threat to the US interest in the region is by getting rid of their regime by any means necessary.
The big question is, will Trump get to his senses and stop things before Bolton escalates things past the point of no return. Trump claims to be the master of deals, after all, and he has shown a tendency to change his course at the last minute, like with North Korea. Although he has made his firm stance towards Iran an integral element of his policies (and his campaign), an actual direct war with a country this powerful might not be in his best interests, as it would be tremendously costly.
Trump's strategy of maximum pressure seems to have worked on several occasions, but it requires some time to take effect. The latest batch of sanctions on the Iranian oil are less than a month old, after all. In the meantime, Trump wants to prevent Iran from reciprocating. This is definitely a short-term tactic, but in the long term, no one knows for sure if the situation would remain unchanged, or there would be a new deal. This is the main flaw of this situation: no one truly knows what the plan is, and that increases the risk of an exchange of actions and counter-actions, and further escalation to war that could start either through a miscalculation or a provocation from either side. Although things are looking tense right now, the clash does not seem inevitable just yet, but the risks are sharply increasing. Because Iran is convinced they could not show weakness, and the US wants to demonstrate its power to stop Iran. So the vicious circle of threat and counter-threat is quickly closing in.
Things went from bad to worse with Iran, after Trump decided to bring the Iranian oil exports to zero, and reinforce the US military presence in the Gulf because of, in his own words, "indications for imminent Iranian threat". Last year he scrapped the nuclear deal, and amped up sanctions against countries dealing with Iran. He brought back all restrictions on Iran, even though Iran was honouring the deal at the time, aiming to suffocate the Iranian oil exports and force them to accept his new conditions. And now we see the military presence in the Gulf reaching levels that make it all look like a war is coming up.
Iran's supreme leader Khamenei said there won't be a war with the US, despite the tensions about his country's nuclear capabilities, their missile program and their support for proxies like Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. But he was also adamant that Iran would not be negotiating with the US on the nuclear deal, despite the heavy blow on their economy from the sanctions (the IMF forecasts a 6% GDP slump and 37% inflation for this year). Secretary of State Pompeo also said the US doesn't seek war with Iran, but they would respond if the US interests are threatened, whatever that means. Trump denied any plans for sending 120 thousand troops to the region, saying he was hoping there would be no need of that, but if that need arises, the number would be "much bigger".
The situation got even hotter when Saudi Arabia claimed Iranian drones had sabotaged two pumping stations of a big pipeline, a couple of days after several oil tankers were also sabotaged in UAE waters. The US intelligence says it was proxies working on Iran's behalf, and warned that they are preparing for "future threats for the US forces in Iraq" by Iran-supported groups. Last week part of the US embassy staff in Baghdad was evacuated.
Trump is threatening Iran that they would "suffer greatly if they do something". But it is very unlikely that verbal threats and sabre-rattling of this sort would somehow make Iran give up. This is Persia that we are talking about, a massive and proud nation that did not give up during the bloodbath of the Iran-Iraq war, and it won't give up now. What's more, they could even double down and renew their nuclear capabilities, leaving the US with no other option but to respond to the challenge. The question is, does Trump really need and want a war just as the presidential election campaign is looming. Perhaps yes - every US president has waged at least one war during their term for the last few decades, this has become something like a tradition at this point. It certainly did not stop Bush Jr from getting re-elected. And it might be exactly what the Republican base needs right now.
The situation could actually serve both sides of this conflict as hardliners both in Iran and the US are rubbing their hands with delight. Iran has warned that they would no longer honour their commitments as per the nuclear deal, now that the US has unilaterally and inexplicably decided to scrap it. In turn, this provides the hawks in Washington and Arlington like John Bolton more reason to harden their position. In this situation, even relatively moderate Iranian president Rowhani who was a staunch supporter of the nuclear deal, has been compelled to start sounding like a hawk. And there is a concern that Bolton is trying to pressure both Trump and Iran into the corner, and leave them with no option but to start a war. For years Bolton has made it very clear that he believes the only way to eliminate the Iranian threat to the US interest in the region is by getting rid of their regime by any means necessary.
The big question is, will Trump get to his senses and stop things before Bolton escalates things past the point of no return. Trump claims to be the master of deals, after all, and he has shown a tendency to change his course at the last minute, like with North Korea. Although he has made his firm stance towards Iran an integral element of his policies (and his campaign), an actual direct war with a country this powerful might not be in his best interests, as it would be tremendously costly.
Trump's strategy of maximum pressure seems to have worked on several occasions, but it requires some time to take effect. The latest batch of sanctions on the Iranian oil are less than a month old, after all. In the meantime, Trump wants to prevent Iran from reciprocating. This is definitely a short-term tactic, but in the long term, no one knows for sure if the situation would remain unchanged, or there would be a new deal. This is the main flaw of this situation: no one truly knows what the plan is, and that increases the risk of an exchange of actions and counter-actions, and further escalation to war that could start either through a miscalculation or a provocation from either side. Although things are looking tense right now, the clash does not seem inevitable just yet, but the risks are sharply increasing. Because Iran is convinced they could not show weakness, and the US wants to demonstrate its power to stop Iran. So the vicious circle of threat and counter-threat is quickly closing in.
