Animosity between the US & Iran is certainly not any thing new. The Iranian regime and the Americans have been at loggerheads ever since the overthrow of the Shah in the 1979 Revolution in Tehran. Anti-American sentiment has been at the centre of Iranian foreign and domestic policy for decades, and it has been a cornerstone to ensure that it remains in power throughout the years. Iran has undergone turbulent times since, with its war against neighboring Iraq in the 1980’s leading to millions dead on both sides, and economic stagnation throughout the years due to powerful sanctions along with economic mismanagement.
After the US decided to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or as its more popularly known, the Iranian nuclear deal, last year, the European Union has been scrambling to keep Iran in the deal. With the US putting on new sanctions on the Iranian economy, as well as its entire oil export inventory, Iran charged the EU to find a way to offset the effects of the US sanctions, or else it would consider leaving the deal in its entirety. To date, the EU’s efforts have been less than successful. This has set the stage for Iranians to slowly extricate themselves from the deal itself. In time, this may lead to a direct confrontation with Israel, who fears an Iranian nuclear programme, or the Americans – if not both. But this remains some way off for the time being.
Some recent developments have given rise concerns, however. France, Germany and the UK have in recent days said that “Iran’s development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles” go against a UN Security Council resolution which urged Tehran to avoid pursuing such a course of action. A flight test of a new Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, which had been released on social media earlier in April of this year, is said to be equipped with a maneuverable reentry vehicle, which would be a prerequisite for a missile to first exit, then re-enter the atmosphere on its way to a target – a vital element for any nuclear weapon. Iran strongly denies having, or developing such weapons, despite evidence to the contrary. Iran has long denied having any sort of intentions to pursue a military nuclear programme, the successful completion of which would provide Iran with a nuclear deterrent, permanently cementing their position as a major player in regional politics.
In addition to this, the White House is considering whether to deploy thousands more US troops to the Middle East as part of an effort to counterbalance Iranian influence, and to “deter Iranian provocations.” The number of troops being reported hovers around 15,000, although there are a number of details which remain unclear. For instance, what type of troops will they be? Army? Marines? The answer to this makes a difference when trying to decipher what their role will be on the ground. Secondly, where will these troops be based? The US is trying to pull troops out of Afghanistan, and Iraq has made it clear it is not keen on housing any American troops on their territory. Syria does not seem as likely, given that the US seems as though it is happy to cede its position in the country to Turkey, Russia and Iran. The only plausible alternatives would be either Jordan, a staunch US ally, or Saudi Arabia. Both of which would bring into question just what their role would be, whether their posture would be defensive or whether this would be some form of expeditionary group, like the Marines, which would be a self-contained, battle-ready outfit which is capable of responding to conflict within a matter of a few days.
To add fuel to the fire, reports emerging from the US charge Iran with placing short-range ballistic missiles in Iraq, which could allow Iran to project its military power into neighboring countries. Whether this was done with the implicit, or explicit consent of Iraq is unclear at this stage. What is clear is that the US is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with just how Iran has consolidated its position in the absence of an American strategy designed to contain the spread of its influence. Tehran can claim to have influence to varying degrees over vast swathes of the Middle East, making any conflict with it to be dangerous, given the potential repercussions in various hotspots in places like Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
If the US adds further troops to the region, it will not necessarily calm the situation down, but it will act as a deterrent to ensure that Tehran does not seek to broaden its influence and operations in the region further. With each passing year, however, Tehran’s influence has grown, and its ability to project its power has grown in parallel, despite America’s best efforts.
Where does this leave things? In the run up to 2020 US Presidential election, it is hard to see the Iranians not looking to use the November polls to their advantage. They may seek to deliver a blow to Trump’s prestige in the early part of next year, through some form of plausible deniability attack, in order to distance themselves from any retaliation. They may also wager that it any action against the US would be too likely to result in disproportionate retaliation from America, at a time in which Tehran is dealing with its own economic problems and social unrest. Lacking a cohesive Middle Eastern strategy, the US has allowed the cards to be in Iran’s hands. It is going to be up to them to determine how best to play them.
Matthew Bugeja – GeoPolitical Advisor – CiConsulta
