Cooler Heads Must Prevail Between U.S. & Iran

Authored by James Durso via RealClearWorld,

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz recently declared, “Israel is trapping Iran and America.”

If that is true, perhaps the U.S. and Iran should cooperate to extricate themselves from that trap.

In the wake of the most recent exchange of fire between Israel and Iran, the region is on the cusp of more violence and instability, but who benefits from the chaos?

Previously, the Arab Gulf states may have been happy to see Iran distracted from fighting an American ally, but that’s not likely anymore. First came the  China-brokered deal in 2023 that restarted diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then last week the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members declared their neutrality in the new round Iran-Israel fighting, and at the Doha meeting between the Saudi foreign minister and Iran’s president the minister stated, "We aim to permanently close the chapter on our differences and focus on resolving issues, developing relations as two friendly and brotherly countries."

Who’s left? The U.S., Israel, and the defense contractors.

The defense contractors will do as they’re told, and Israel appears locked on a path of escalation, partly to restore deterrence vis-à-vis Iran but also to keep Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu out of jail.

That leaves the Americans to reassert stability as only Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu benefits from the fragmentation of the region. Regional chaos encourages Jerusalem to appeal to Washington for even more subventions of cash and transfers of weapons, the latter of which may be reducing the U.S. inventories to a dangerously low level. Unrest will also motivate Israel’s American confederates to press Washington for policies that are good for Israel (so they think) but that erode U.S. influence abroad.

Netanyahu recently spoke to the Iranian people, “Iran will be free soon…” and regime-changey talk like that should be all Washington needs to back away from any association with a coup in Tehran as it made that mistake once before and is still living with the result.

In 1953, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Britain’s MI-6 sponsored a coup to depose Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, an idiosyncratic politician with authoritarian tendencies, the concern being the possibility of Communist influence on his government. The concern about the influence of the communist Tudeh Party was exaggerated, but the Americans also probably wanted to help Britain retain control of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and reverse the 1951 nationalization of Iran’s oil industry.

The Americans installed another idiosyncratic authoritarian, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as the Shah and he showed his gratitude in 1973 when he convinced the other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to double the price of a barrel of oil from $5.11 to $11.65.

The foreign imposition of an absolutist monarch stirred popular discontent that contributed to the successful 1979 Iranian Revolution (and 444-day hostage crisis) and arrival of an even more absolutist theocracy that promptly used Iran’s oil and natural gas resources to fund its aggressive designs at home and abroad.

So, Washington tried to stop communist influence in an oil-producing state on the Soviet Union’s border and help its British ally that was seeing its empire dissolve, and ended up losing two times: the West lost control of Iran’s energy resources and set the stage for the overthrow of the Shah.

Fool me once…

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared the Islamic Republic considers nuclear weapons un-Islamic but we are only a revised fatwa away from a new policy if Israel pursues escalation and regime change. Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman declared, “…without a doubt, if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we would follow suit as soon as possible."

Saudi Arabia is a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and a move to develop nuclear weapons would incur sanctions, though it will be a grand opportunity for the world to ask Washington why it lets Jews (Israel) and Hindus (India) slide, but sanctions Muslims (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.)

Iran’s vice president, and former foreign minister, Javad Zarif, agrees with Haaretz and says Iran will not fall into the Israeli trap, and that “[Israel] thrives on tension, on conflict, and we will not provide it to them.” Zarif also says that Hamas will not be defeated which aligns with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert who declared the destruction of Hamas “will not be achieved.”

Netanyahu is bringing people together but not the way he hoped.

And Israel’s indifference to civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon may rebound to America’s disadvantage. The Pentagon’s lawyers and spokesmen have spent two decades since 9/11 hand-waving away criticism of excess civilian deaths by piously declaring that bombing that wedding party was a real shame but it was “collateral damage” and is “in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict.”

In the future it may be harder to dismiss tragic follies like the U.S. trying five times to kill Qari Hussain, a deputy commander of the Pakistani Taliban, before getting lucky the sixth time, but in the process killing 128 unlucky people, 13 of them children. The West’s power has allowed it to take advantage of the “double standard of terrorism and state violence” where terrorism is what you call the other guy’s weapon of choice. But the reaction to Israel’s careless targeting and its American patron’s likewise unenviable track record in Iraq and Afghanistan (and its indulgence of Saudi Arabia’s attacks on Yemeni civilians), may erode the “distinction between state violence and terrorism,” and expose civilian officials and military commander to legal jeopardy.  

If the U.S. decides to work with Iran to lessen tensions it will then be pressured to restart the nuclear deal with Tehran. In that case, it will have to craft an entirely new arrangement as Iran has steamed ahead with nuclear research and development after Washington scrapped its commitments to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, and Europe maintained the restrictive measures that were to have expired in 2023 (though Iran didn’t help its case by expelling inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.)

There is a lot of bad faith to go around.

If the U.S. can start talking to Iran and avert Israeli escalation that will kick off a region-wide war, it will have to get used to a greater role for Russia and China have declared their interest in supporting peace in the region, and conveniently undercutting the U.S. in the process. Iran will continue to follow a multi-vector foreign policy and privilege relations with Russia, China, and the BRICS countries, and eschew the diplomatic monogamy demanded by Washington which views diplomatic relations as a reward for complaint behavior instead of a way to pursue the national interest.

And would U.S. forces be ready and able to attack Iran? No. Ammunition transfers to Ukraine and Israel and the attacks on Houthi forces in Yemen have depleted U.S. inventories; the only ship that can replenish aviation fuel for aircraft carriers ran aground and is out of service, and the U.S. Navy recently sidelined 17 supply ships over a crew shortage.; the GCC declaration of neutrality may mean its airspace is  closed to U.S. forces poised to attack Iran (Tehran has called "unacceptable" the use of GCC airspace or military bases against Iran); and local suppliers of military-grade aviation fuel may not provision U.S. forces.

Another year to remember is 1980, when Iraq invaded Iran (Iraq received extensive  U.S. support after 1982.) The invasion was seen as a direct threat to Iran's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and fostered a sense of national unity and solidarity among Iranians. The war, which lasted until 1988, became a rallying point for the Iranian population, who mobilized in defense of their country and the Islamic Revolution. The conflict also helped consolidate the power of the clerical leadership in Iran, as they framed the war as a defense of Islam and the revolution. 

A U.S. attack on Iran, especially if it is seen in the service of Israel, will be a godsend for Ayatollah Khamenei who will be spoiled for choice: America will be not just the “Great Satan” but also the “New Saddam.”

William Burns, the director of the CIA reported this week, “…we do not see evidence today that the supreme leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] has reversed the decision that he took at the end of 2003 to suspend the weaponization program.” If that is the case, Israel is not in extremis and there is no need for the U.S. to spearhead an attack on Iran. 

And on top of all that, a recent poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found, “Whether attacked by its neighbors or Tehran, majorities of Americans oppose using US troops to come to Israel’s defense.” In the wake of two decades of war, a ruinous bout of inflation, and the destruction of Hurricane Helene, Americans may be in the mood for what former president Barack Obama called “nation-building here at home.”   

They say, “Cash rules everything around me,” and Israel’s intentions for Iran are no exception. Iran has proven skills in nuclear technology, and rockets and missiles (as Israel understands after 1 October.) Iran and Israel are the two key native sources of technology in the Middle East and it is important to the recovery of Israel’s post-war economy that Iran remain isolated and unable to be an economic competitor. And Iran has over 90 million potential consumers and employees to Israel’s nine million, and may be a more attractive target for investors.

The Jerusalem Post reports, “The US has reportedly offered Israel a "compensation package" if it refrains from attacking certain targets in Iran,” which is an admission of Washington’s inability to halt escalation. If true, Jerusalem will continue to demand more compensation to prevent its next move, and then the move after that… Extortionists do not stop after the first payment.

Without a moment’s delay, Washington and Tehran should put aside their differences and work today to avert what Ehud Olmert calls “a war for his [Netanyahu’s] personal gains.”

James Durso (@james_durso) is a regular commentator on foreign policy and national security matters. Mr. Durso served in the U.S. Navy for 20 years and has worked in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.