The question of what constitutes “victory” regarding Iran policy continues to be a shifting target under the Trump administration, raising concerns among foreign policy analysts about a lack of clear strategic goals. This ambiguity, coupled with escalating tensions in the region, was a central theme of discussion on last night’s Washington Week With The Atlantic, where experts debated the potential pitfalls of a prolonged confrontation with Tehran.
The core of the concern, as articulated by David Ignatius, a foreign-affairs columnist at The Washington Post, centers on the potential for a drawn-out conflict that fails to achieve lasting results. “In a tactical sense, there’s no question that overwhelming military power is brought to bear and Iran is being degraded,” Ignatius said. However, he cautioned against drawing parallels to past conflicts, specifically the situation in Gaza. “The more I watch this process of a weak enemy being pounded and pounded, I’m reminded of the Gaza war.” He pointed out that despite significant Israeli military action over two years, “Hamas still controls most of the Palestinians in Gaza,” arguing that “Even with all that power, Israel wasn’t able to win—and I think that’s what we’re all worrying about.” This raises the specter of a costly and ultimately inconclusive engagement, a scenario many analysts are keen to avoid.
The discussion on Washington Week featured a panel of seasoned journalists and experts, including Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic; Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent at The Modern York Times; Susan Glasser, a staff writer at The New Yorker; and Missy Ryan, a staff writer at The Atlantic. Their conversation highlighted the challenges of defining success in a complex geopolitical landscape, particularly when the administration’s stated objectives appear to evolve.
The Shifting Sands of Trump’s Iran Policy
President Trump’s approach to Iran has been marked by a series of escalating actions since withdrawing the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, in May 2018. The State Department details the rationale for withdrawal, citing concerns about the deal’s sunset clauses and its failure to address Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities. Following the withdrawal, the U.S. Reimposed sanctions on Iran, aiming to cripple its economy and compel a renegotiation of the agreement.
However, the administration’s stated goals have often been unclear. Initially, the focus appeared to be on forcing Iran back to the negotiating table to secure a more comprehensive deal. More recently, rhetoric has shifted towards regime change, with officials openly discussing the possibility of supporting opposition groups within Iran. This inconsistency has fueled confusion among allies and adversaries alike, making it difficult to assess the U.S.’s long-term intentions. The lack of a clearly defined end-state, as highlighted by the Washington Week panel, is a significant concern.
Echoes of Gaza: The Limits of Military Power
Ignatius’s comparison to the Gaza conflict is particularly salient. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict demonstrates the limitations of military force in achieving political objectives when dealing with non-state actors or deeply entrenched ideologies. Hamas, despite facing repeated military offensives, remains a powerful force in Gaza, controlling the territory and continuing to launch attacks against Israel. The Council on Foreign Relations provides a detailed overview of the ongoing conflict and its complexities.
The analogy suggests that even a successful military campaign against Iran – defined as degrading its military capabilities – may not translate into a desired political outcome. Iran, like Hamas, possesses a deeply rooted ideological commitment and a network of regional proxies. Simply weakening its military capacity may not be enough to alter its behavior or force a change in regime. This is a key point of contention among policymakers, with some arguing for a more comprehensive strategy that addresses the underlying political and economic factors driving Iran’s actions.
Stakeholders and Regional Implications
The potential for a prolonged conflict with Iran has far-reaching implications for the entire region. Key stakeholders include Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of whom view Iran as a major threat to their security. These countries have been strong supporters of the Trump administration’s hardline stance on Iran and are likely to welcome any action that weakens Tehran. However, they are also vulnerable to Iranian retaliation, particularly through its proxy forces in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.
Other regional actors, such as Turkey and Qatar, have maintained more nuanced relationships with Iran. These countries are likely to seek to de-escalate tensions and avoid being drawn into a wider conflict. The European Union, a signatory to the JCPOA, has also expressed concerns about the escalating tensions and has urged all parties to return to the negotiating table. The European Union’s delegation to Iran continues to advocate for a diplomatic solution.
Watch the full episode of Washington Week With The Atlantic here.
What’s Next?
As of today, March 28, 2024, the Biden administration continues to pursue a policy of “deterrence and diplomacy” with Iran, although maintaining sanctions pressure. The next key date to watch is April 1, 2024, when several waivers allowing countries to import Iranian oil without facing U.S. Sanctions are set to expire. The administration’s decision on whether to renew these waivers will be a significant indicator of its willingness to engage in further negotiations with Iran. The situation remains fluid and requires careful monitoring.
What are your thoughts on the administration’s approach to Iran? Share your perspectives in the comments below, and please share this article with others who are interested in this critical issue.
Worth a look
