Iran

Yesterday, President Trump tweeted that the “official” end of Iran is on the horizon if they continue to threaten the United States. I, like many of you, saw this tweet and thought…. What in the world is going on? The truth is, tensions have been building with Iran for the entire Trump administration. How so?

About one year ago the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal, signed by the Obama administration. Notably, Gina Haspel, director of the CIA, testified to Congress after the decision that Iran was, in fact, in compliance with the deal. 

Iran was de-nuclearizing. 

The Administration’s withdrawal was a setback for de-nuclearization in the region, however, the Trump administration was unwilling to accept Iran’s undesirable actions in the region including funding terrorism and threatening Israel and therefore, we withdrew. 

Fast-forward to April 2019. The Trump administration announced new sanctions against Iranian oil, ending a waiver program that allowed certain countries to continue to purchase Iranian oil. Simultaneously, the administration labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, part of the country’s armed forces, a terrorist organization. 

These moves alone put the Iranian-US relationship on ice. 

More recently, smaller conflicts in the region have escalated the situation. Particularly, due to the increased sanctions, Iranian oil sales have been cut in half, severely hampering the state’s economy. 

Then, just this past week, US intelligence officials reported that Iran has been encouraging proxy forces to provoke the United States. In particular, Houthi rebels, aligned with Iran, claimed responsibility for attacking Saudi Arabian oil pipelines. A few days after that four oil tankers were attacked. Two were Saudi Arabian, one Norwegian and the other belonged to the UAE, an American ally. 

All of these actions have brought the US to the brink of military action in Iran. In response to what the Trump administration believes is Iranian proxy aggression a Patriot anti-missile battery, a combat helicopter vessel, B 52 bombers and the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier have moved into the Middle East. 

That is the present situation. 

Even after his provocative tweet, the President made it clear to Defense Secretary Shanahan that he did not want military conflict with Iran. However, National Security Advisor John Bolton, a strong proponent of regime change in Iran is widely thought to be pushing a more aggressive strategy, one that could, in theory, lead to war. 

In Fact, Bolton asked the Pentagon to prepare plans for 120,000 troops to move into the Middle East. 

To state the obvious: This is concerning. While the President does not want a war, the escalation can be classified under the political science theory of brinksmanship. Brinksmanship is when two opposing sides take incremental steps towards armed conflict while both desiring a diplomatic solution. However, these situations are particularly perilous because minor mistakes or miscommunications can trigger conflict. 

At present it is unlikely that an armed conflict will break out. However, the tension with Iran has other detractions. Specifically, Iran announced this week it has increased its uranium enrichment four-fold and is, once again, on track to become a nuclear power. 

One year ago last week, Iran was in full compliance with the Iran Nuclear Deal and was no longer a serious nuclear threat to the United States or Israel. Now, they are once again speeding toward obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Of course, Trump supporters argue Iran’s support of terrorism and the Assad regime in Syria justify voiding the deal, increasing sanctions and declaring a part of the Iranian military a terrorist organization and, to be honest, that may be true. 

But, at the end of the day, Iran without enriched uranium is better than Iran with enriched uranium and at present, Trump’s tactic has led to the latter and sacrificed the former. 

Whether they will be able to successfully bring about regime change is thus far unclear. 

Stay tuned.