Brian M Downing
The US full-spectrum pressure on Iran has thus far not gotten Iran out of Syria, isolated Hisbollah, fomented an uprising, or brought down the regime of mullahs and generals. The policy seems counterproductive, solidifying the guardians in Tehran, weakening Washington’s respect in the world, and strengthening Beijing’s if only relatively.
The US and its allies
Washington gathered broad support for the 1991 Gulf War, Afghanistan in 2001, the 2003 Gulf War, and the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal (JCPOA). Even China and Russia were on board for the JCPOA. Today, however, the US has no support from longstanding allies. Only Saudi Arabia and Israel are on board, mainly in the stern and below decks.
Allies in Europe and Asia, including countries hosting US military bases, are unconvinced by US claims that Iran has violated the JCPOA. Their intelligence services are convinced that Iran is essentially in accord and quickly note that so do the IAEA and CIA. The Iran policy seems based on tendentious assertions by Neoconservatives, the Israeli Right, and Gulf monarchies.
Iran certainly has human rights failures but no more than Saudi Arabia or many other countries. Some of those lands of course are home to US military bases.
Europe and Asia see Iran as an important source of energy and a country of 80 million consumers. Trade and prosperity, they contend, are more productive than accusations and threats.
Erratic direction
Perhaps at least as troubling as the dubious bases of the Iran policy, is Washington’s incoherence in handling its policy. The national security team has had an unsettling number of people come and go. Many were summarily dismissed, including active-duty and retired generals and the president’s handpicked counselors. Remaining figures are loyalists and dilettantes with little expertise or strategic vision – and it shows.
Iran’s importance shifts from month to month. At times war clouds form, but they dissipate as attention shifts to other matters or as generals push back against what they deem a strategic distraction. But war again seems to be coming as foreign pressures mount once more and play upon the president’s vanity and belligerence. Allies know this is not how a world leader should conduct itself.
The Iranian public
Allies see the US policy inflicting needless suffering on Iranians. The economy is in poor shape, worsened by sanctions and foreign-backed bombings. Basic items are out of reach even for many in the middle-classes.
The Covid 19 epidemic has hit hard there and Iranians are unable to get medicines from abroad – sanctions. Respect for America in general, and especially for the legitimacy of its concern with human rights, is reaching a low.
Consequences of success
It isn’t clear if Washington has adequately considered what might follow from a victory over Iran or even if it has an endgame in mind. A large war in the Gulf, say, something like the Iran-Iraq War of the 80s, would jack oil prices and hurt the world economy at an inopportune time. Most countries are already weighed down by the plague, unemployment is at levels unseen since the 1930s, and domestic turmoil is worsening.
Serious problems may strike without major fighting. Sanctions and military jabs could gravely weaken the Iranian government, leading to refugees fleeing to safer lands, insurgencies, fragmentation, and safe havens for Islamist militants in Sunni regions as in Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Iraq already.
Saudi Arabia and its ambitious crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, would be stronger and bolder, at home and abroad. No longer concerned by Tehran, Riyadh would increase its hegemony over the Sunni world, expand its effort to subjugate Shia populations, and greatly worsen sectarian animosities from the Maghreb to South Asia.
From the perspective of Western Europe and East Asia, there are few if any discernible benefits from weakening Iran.
* * *
The world’s only superpower is being manipulated by Middle Eastern governments with parochial interests at odds with the larger world’s – and with the US’s as well. The US is acting disconcertingly and puzzlingly, driven by dubious assertions and inexperienced advisors.
The hawks may be running out of time. A new president in five months will be unable to patch things up with Iran but he’s unlikely to continue on the path to war. The hawks know this and are pushing hard for collision with Iran.
© 2020 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.