As the U.S. reintroduces oil and multisector trade sanctions on Iran on Monday, President Trump must anticipate Iran’s response. The Islamic revolutionary republic is highly likely to lash out in some violent or destabilizing fashion.
The evidence for this concern is already abundant. Since at least early October, European intelligence services have witnessed escalating Iranian preparatory actions toward near-term terrorist attacks on the continent. This threat environment must be taken seriously in that the Iranians have the capability and pedigree for terrorist attacks that would appear, by most analytical assessments, to risk far greater negative responses than they might earn in political dividends. Iran’s plotting of attacks in Europe also fits with its strategic interest in sending a message in a way that might not invite immediate and overwhelming American response.
At the same time, Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards’ covert action unit, the Quds Force, isn’t hiding his aggression. Soleimani recently warned Trump, “I will stand against you.” From most foreign adversaries, such threats could be taken as half-serious. But from Soleimani, threats must be viewed as credible. In turn, Trump must make clear that Iranian or proxy terrorist attacks on the U.S. will meet a firm (and explicitly, military) response.
More broadly, however, the Trump administration must also consider what its overarching strategic objective is here. At present, the objective isn’t clear.
Trump’s stated intent is Iran’s agreement of an improved nuclear agreement. The U.S. decision to grant certain trade and oil import waivers would suggest that Trump wants to give the Europeans a carrot with which to nudge Iran back to the negotiating table. Yet Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seems to have far broader ambitions. Pompeo on Monday explained that Iran must undertake a “180 degree” about-face away from its present revolutionary agenda if it is to receive sanctions relief. Pompeo is a bright guy, and he knows that is never going to happen on the current sanction terms. As such, Pompeo’s words suggest he seeks a far more aggressive showdown with Iran.
The difference in strategic objective matters a great deal. Because if the Iranians see these new sanctions as a precursor to even harsher American action under a long-term pressure campaign, they will almost certainly lash out. Crucially, here, we must not make the mistake of viewing Iranian deliberations through a Western lens. The Iranian hardliners have a fetish for this kind of showdown in that it plays to their deepest identity. Specifically, to the legacy of Husayn ibn Ali. Killed by a far larger force at the Battle of Karbala in A.D. 638, Ali’s death is immortalized by the Iranian hardliners as a testament to ordained struggle against superior odds. This informs Iran’s belief that with courage and tenacity, it can overcome even the U.S.
Put simply, the Iranian hardliners live for moments like this and will roll the dice in the belief that somehow they can defeat America.
The risks of Iranian aggression also have roots in Tehran. With Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dying, the Iranian regime is in a state of power flux. On the one side is the more-moderate political bloc aligned under President Hassan Rouhani. On the other side are the hardliners aligned with Soleimani and the revolutionary guards. With the backdrop of escalating opposition movements, each bloc wants to put itself in pole position to set Iran’s course. And again, each side is willing to take great risks to do so.
In this regard, it is notable that Rouhani evidently now feels he must increasingly play to hardliner sentiments. Capping off weeks of more conciliatory rhetoric, Rouhani on Monday signaled an ominous tone when he warned that “[the U.S.] must be punished once and for all.” And it’s even more complicated than that because the hardliner bloc is increasingly fraught with its own internal tensions (thanks to the Israeli Mossad in particular) over trust and power.
The one thing that unifies the hardliners? Taking on America and Israel. Washington must pay heed to all this.
First, the Trump administration must get clear about what it actually wants to achieve in Iran. Does it want a better Iranian nuclear agreement or does it want regime change? Second, the U.S. must be clear-sighted about the stakes. Altering Iran’s nuclear proliferation and regional aggression is both preferable and worthy of risk. But we must not be delusional: The risks involved in taking that course are neither distant nor small.
Source » washingtonexaminer