Two sets of US government cables suggest that Iran
hawks in and outside the Trump administration appear to have the upper hand as
European countries give hardliners a helping hand by attempting to force Iran
to seek a diplomatic solution to a crisis that threatens to engulf the Middle
East in yet another military conflict.
Disclosure of the cables advocating a military strike
such as this month’s killing of Iranian general Qassim Soleimani coupled with
the withdrawal of a US State Department olive branch that was intended to
reassure Iran about the Trump administration’s intentions appear designed to
persuade the Islamic republic to back away from its strategy of gradual
escalation.
The strategy aims to engineer a situation in which a
return to negotiations on the basis of the 2015 international agreement that curbed
Iran’s nuclear program is the only way to avoid an all-out war. The Trump
administration withdrew from the accord in 2018 and has since imposed ever
harsher economic sanctions on Iran.
Hardliners in Washington believe Iran’s accidental
downing of a Ukrainian airliner that sparked anti-government protests days
after millions of Iranians came out to mourn Mr. Soleimani’s death in what
Iranian leaders project as a rallying around the regime is a proof of concept
of their approach.
The hard-liners’ strategy was spelled out in a series of unclassified memos sent by David
Wurmser, a close associate of John Bolton, while Mr. Bolton was serving as
national security advise to President Donald J. Trump. The memos projected a US
military operation on the scale of the killing of a Mr. Soleimani as a way of
destabilizing the government in Tehran.
Mr. Wurmser’s advice was in line with proposals for
destabilizing Iran presented to the White House by Mr. Bolton in the months
before his appointment. Mr. Bolton was fired by Mr. Trump in September of last
year.
“Iran has always been careful to execute its ambitions
and aggressive aims incrementally to avoid Western reactions which depart from
the expected. In contrast, were unexpected, rule-changing actions taken against
Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble,” Mr. Wurmser
wrote.
Such a U.S.
attack would “rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control
over them upon which the regime depends for stability and survival… Iranians
would both be impressed and potentially encouraged by a targeted attack on
symbols of repression,” Mr. Wurmser added.
The leaking of Mr. Wurmser’s memos coincided with a
cable from the State Department to US diplomatic missions worldwide that walked back an instruction earlier this month by
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to limit contacts with Iranian
opposition and exile groups in a bid to reassure Iran that the Trump
administration was not seeking regime change in Tehran.
The Pompeo cable seemed to be a first step at
bridging the gulf of distrust between Washington and Tehran that makes a
resolution of the two countries’ differences all but impossible. Iran has long
been convinced that regime change is the main driver of US policy since the
1979 Islamic revolution.
Mr. Pompeo’s instruction came on the heels of Mr.
Trump’s decision not to respond to Iranian missile attacks on US forces in Iraq
in retaliation for the killing of Mr. Soleimani.
With the government in Tehran on the backfoot as a
result of the downing of the Ukrainian airliner and renewed anti-government
protests, leaders of Britain, France and Germany, cosignatories of the 2015
nuclear accord, appear to be buying into the strategy of the Washington hardliners.
The Europeans, responding to Iran’s gradual withdrawal
from its commitments under the accord as part of its strategy of gradual
escalation, this week triggered its dispute resolution
mechanism, that could put Iran’s
actions on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council and lead to a
re-imposition of international sanctions.
British prime minister Boris Johnson further raised
the stakes by telling the BBC that he would be willing to back an as yet non-existent proposal by
Mr. Trump for a new agreement with Iran.
“If we are going to get rid of it (the nuclear accord), then we need a
replacement,” Mr. Johnson said.
The proof will be in the pudding whether the
two-pronged stepping up of US and European pressure on Iran will be sufficient
to engineer a breakthrough in efforts to avert escalating tension and a return
to the negotiating table.
So far, Iran’s response suggests tensions may have to
further escalate before parties, all of whom do not want an all-out war, pull
back from the brink.
In a first, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani,
insisting that all foreign forces should leave the Middle East, warned, in
response to the European move and statements, that British, French and German
troops may be in danger.
“Today, the American soldier is in danger, tomorrow
the European soldier could be in danger,” Mr. Rouhani told a Cabinet meeting.
Said a Western diplomat, spelling out European
thinking: “This allows us to buy time while making clear to Iran that they cannot continue
on this path of non-compliance with no consequences.”
For now, it’s a high stakes poker bet on who blinks
first.
