Gerard Araud

The paradox is this: on one hand, Americans and Israelis are masters of the Iranian sky and can strike their enemy wherever and whenever they want, but on the other hand, the Islamic Republic not only shows no sign of conceding defeat but has also taken the global economy hostage through the Strait of Hormuz. In Washington, aside from Trump who claims victory, everyone is realizing the deadlock, from which it is hard to see how to come out with heads held high. The choice is binary: war or negotiation.

Resuming massive strikes to destroy Iran’s infrastructure would certainly be possible, but why would they succeed in achieving what they failed to do in 37 days of bombardment? Moreover, this country still has the military capabilities to inflict substantial damage on the region’s oil and gas installations.

In this regard, the turning point was its response to an Israeli attack on March 18 on a terminal of the South Pars gas field, which it operates with Qatar: it targeted the installations of this country and inflicted damage that will require years of repairs. Trump then ordered a halt to any strikes on energy infrastructure.

Absence of solid guarantees

The message was clear. No doubt it was understood, especially in Saudi Arabia. Tehran thus announced to all that the resumption of fighting could result in devastating blows to the region’s economy – and thus the world. As for unblocking the Strait of Hormuz by force, the success of the operation would not only be hypothetical on the ground, but also due to the likely reluctance of insurance companies to then authorize the resumption of passages, out of fear of mines and a possible Iranian retaliation.

Negotiation remains. But it faces the conviction of the Iranians that they have won the war and their determination to reap all the benefits of their victory. Furthermore, they do not trust their enemies who have repeatedly shown that they do not keep their word: attacks during negotiations, targeted assassinations of Iranian negotiators, Israel’s violation of a ceasefire, American blockade in contradiction of an agreement, etc.

In this context, it is inevitable in Tehran to view talks as merely a screen to resume surprise attacks. A solid guarantee that this would not be the case, in the form of a public commitment with no escape clause, is therefore necessary in their eyes.

Hormuz, the most spectacular gain

Moreover, it appears highly improbable that they would give up control of the Strait of Hormuz, which has proven to be extremely effective and has put Iran in a position to impose its will on the global economy and any country that may be hostile. More effective than a nuclear weapon, one can conclude in Tehran.

A victor, as the Iranians see themselves, does not give up the most spectacular gain of their victory. This control, whether it takes the form of toll or not, would clearly show that free passage depends solely on the goodwill of Iran, which would gain prestige and power far beyond what they could have been before the Israeli-American attack.

Negotiation may be impossible or, at the very least, complex and a powerless force, then the armed face-off remains, American blockade against Iranian blockade. But what would be the consequence on the global economy and thus the American economy a few months before the midterm elections? To believe that the Iranian regime will give in first is to ignore its radical nature: there is nothing to suggest that after killing tens of thousands of its citizens, it would be moved by their suffering.

Financial, economic, and military order sabotaged

Here too, Trump is trapped. Around him, there is therefore talk of disengagement accompanied by cries of victory, leaving the region to solve its problems. A failure covered by the president’s and his supporters’ clamor: it would not be the first time, but what would be the consequences in the medium and long term?

After all, one might respond, the United States, since 1945, have lost wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan…) while remaining a superpower. Why would it be any different today? Firstly, because it would be the end of a pillar of their power, the Gulf states, which they would not have protected and therefore would be forced to seek salvation elsewhere, all the while being subjected to Iranian tutelage. Would they continue to support the dollar empire, which partly relies on its use for purchasing gas and oil?

Secondly, because it would have been highlighted not only that the gamekeeper has joined the poachers but also that it is possible and necessary to protect oneself from them. Finally, because each state would have no choice but to engage in an arms race in a pure logic of power balance. Trump would not only have been defeated in the short term but, in the process, would have sabotaged the financial, economic, and military order that has always allowed the United States to recover from their disasters.