IRAN AND THE US MUST RECONSIDER THEIR RED LINES IF THEY WANT TO AVOID WAR - Filenews 26/2
By the Bloomberg editorial team
The US and Iran are heading full speed towards a conflict that neither side seemingly wants, but both seem unable to avoid. The two long-standing rivals must pause and think carefully about where their real interests lie.
After weeks of intense concentration of forces in the region, two U.S. aircraft carriers and swarms of advanced fighter and bomber jets are now ready to launch massive air and missile attacks against the Islamic Republic. In theory, the two sides are negotiating an agreement to satisfy US demands, which were likely communicated during the recent talks in Geneva. However, a military deployment of this magnitude has its own dynamics. The president has already warned that he may order a more targeted strike while negotiations are underway, in order to show the seriousness of his intentions. If Iran tries to buy time or refuses to meet U.S. red lines, as seems likely, the president will face enormous pressure to launch a more extensive offensive in order to maintain U.S. credibility.
However, the White House may have reached the limits of "gunboat diplomacy". At this point, a limited initial attack is more likely to convince the regime that it must respond harshly to restore its deterrent power, rather than compromise. A broader campaign could destroy what's left of Iran's nuclear facilities and ballistic missile manufacturing and launch infrastructure, and perhaps even eliminate top regime figures. But there is little evidence that air strikes alone will topple the government or that what follows will be better. Iranian retaliation would inevitably hit U.S. forces and their allies in the region, especially Israel. And, over time, an even more paranoid and aggressive regime will rebuild its arsenal.
It is worth recognizing the government's pursuit of diplomacy. However, its demands must be clear and realistic – not to mention that they must be communicated to Congress and the American people before sending American troops into battle. If, as the president's comments suggest, the priority is to limit Iran's capabilities to acquire nuclear weapons, a number of conditions will be critical: no advanced centrifuges on Iranian soil, unrestricted access for international inspectors, and a complete inventory and disposal of the roughly 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium supposedly buried by the U.S. and Israeli attacks last year.
If Iran continues to insist that its ballistic missiles and its support for proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis are issues that can only be discussed with its Arab neighbours, it should be reminded that non-nuclear sanctions will not be lifted until these issues are resolved. The regime will have to show more flexibility if it wants to have any hope of reviving a faltering economy, which was the spark for widespread protests earlier this year.
Whether out of pride, ideological zeal or an instinct to bargain for even the slightest advantage, Iranian leaders will be tempted to delay – prolong negotiations, trick the US with impressive promises and try to trap their American counterparts with highly technical details. They will also be reluctant to offer substantial concessions, fearing that the current or future governments will reintroduce sanctions later.
Still, they should consider the cost of repeating this familiar pattern. While Iran may inflict pain on the U.S. and Israel, it will pay the highest price if hostilities escalate. At best, it will come out severely weakened and isolated, and even more vulnerable to future attacks. If the regime survives, officials will have to explain to an angry people why they chose to fight for the right to invest billions in a domestic enrichment program that does not produce nuclear power and in Arab proxies easily crushed by Israel, rather than investing in their estimated 90 million citizens.
Before the outright massacre of thousands of protesters last month, Iran's leaders had turned down opportunity after opportunity to improve the lives of their people. If they do it again, they will be the only ones responsible for the consequences.
Adaptation – Editing: Lydia Roubopoulou
