Why the Iran-U.S. Stand-Off Will Only Get Worse

How do hostile nations prevent a cold war from erupting into a hot one? Usually, by respecting each other’s “red lines,” avoiding escalation, and accepting the existing status quo – even though it may not be satisfactory to anyone. When one side decides that escalation is necessary to break a stalemate, and starts breaching the opponent’s red lines, war becomes imminent unless the opponent capitulates.

Over the last few months, both the U.S. and Iran have breached numerous red lines. Iran shot down a U.S. drone and orchestrated an attack on a key Saudi oil processing plant. The U.S. assassinated General Soleimani, an iconic figure in the Shia world. Iran fired missiles at U.S. military bases. Who would have thought that any country can bomb U.S. forces without instant retribution? Miraculously, the spiral of escalation stopped short of all-out war, even though neither side shows any signs of capitulation. But don’t get your hopes up. The fundamental causes of confrontation are still there, and tensions are likely to get worse in the long run.

How Did We Get Here?

The conflict stems from U.S. policy.   The U.S., along with other great powers, negotiated a deal with Iran in 2015 that solved the most urgent issue: Iran’s nuclear arms program. Iran agreed to freeze the program in exchange for economic sanctions being lifted. Other issues that displeased the U.S. were left unresolved: Iran’s conventional missile program, its disruptive activities in the neighborhood, and – the key to it all – the mere existence of a theocratic regime in Tehran that opposes Pax Americana. From the U.S. perspective, this was an imperfect compromise. A status quo allowing a hostile Iran to remain a strong player in the region, and to continue building up its strength, was unacceptable to Washington. Since the U.S. didn’t get all it wanted, eventually it decided to scuttle the deal, reinstating the sanctions.

We can blame Trump or Bolton or Pompeo, but the issue is larger than any specific individual and will outlast Trump’s presidency. The mainstream U.S. foreign policy establishment – the Deep State, if you will – remains committed to regime change in Tehran. Obviously, Ayatollah Khamenei is not on board with this idea. He is just as committed to staying in power and spreading his revolutionary vision. So, unless the U.S. changes its policy objectives, or Khamenei decides to abdicate power, we are still headed for war.

Can the U.S. Win?

Yes, but not likely, and probably not soon enough. Since the true goal is regime change, sanctions or even bombing usually doesn’t get the job done. Just ask Kim Jong-un or Nicolas Maduro. What could work (and was needed to topple Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq) is a massive ground invasion. But this is not a realistic option for the U.S., for many reasons:

• A huge U.S. invasion force will be needed. (No allies will join this adventure.) This will be much harder than Iraq – the landmass is more than three times the size of Iraq, the Iranian population (83 million) is more than double that of Iraq, and the mountainous terrain much more challenging.
• Iran’s military is a tougher nut to crack than Saddam’s army was. Their advanced missiles, drones, electronic warfare capabilities, and possible use of radioactive materials will present challenges that the U.S. army did not have to face in 2003.
• The U.S. public, already fed up with Middle Eastern fiascos after Iraq and Afghanistan, has no appetite for another one. A big war with Iran would be political suicide for Trump during an election year.
• A land invasion requires another country next door willing to offer its territory as a staging ground. It’s hard to envision any of Iran’s neighbors playing along. Yes, there are small U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are under siege in their own barracks, tiny islands in a sea of hostile local populations, and struggling to remain there much longer. Not to mention, once Iran sees a military build-up on its borders, it may launch a massive preemptive missile strike, along with using local proxies on the ground for more conventional attacks.
• If the U.S. commits the bulk of its forces to a land war in Iran, it will be much less able to respond forcefully to any crisis in another part of the world. China has been eyeing Taiwan for a while, and Russia could escalate in Ukraine.
• Speaking of China and Russia, neither of them would like to see another American opponent go up in smoke. They want regimes like Khamenei’s to survive – the more irritants the U.S. has to deal with, the better for them. So, Iran will not be alone. It is especially hard to see Russia accepting a pro-American puppet government installed in Tehran and American forces gaining a foothold on the Caspian Sea. This would leave the U.S. entrenched on the doorstep of both the Caucasus and Central Asia – the last uncontested piece of Russia’s post-Soviet sphere of influence. (Putin was willing to let the U.S. take Afghanistan in 2001, but those were different times.) If Iran is attacked, Russia may eventually intervene on its side to save it from collapse, just like it did in Syria for Assad, and at a minimum will supply military aid to Iran.
• Wars cost money, and U.S. government spending is already out of control. More broadly, the impact of any kind of war in the Persian Gulf on the global economy will be devastating. More on that later.

So if land war won’t work, what then? How can the U.S. win?

The zealots suggest a long bombing campaign, like Yugoslavia in 1999. Iran’s air defenses won’t be able to stop the U.S. Bombing alone won’t bring regime change or capitulation – if anything, it may rally the Iranian people around their flag. But it would cripple Iran’s armed forces and its economy, and leave Iran less able to project power overseas. It would also slow down Iran’s progress towards nuclear weapons.

This sounds fantastic, if Iran makes no other moves and Americans can just chill on their couches, munching on popcorn while Tehran burns. But Iran can, and will, respond viciously. Especially if the U.S. follows Senator Graham’s advice and bombs Iranian oil refineries and oil fields, crushing the backbone of their export revenues.

The Iranian response would be to shut down all oil traffic in the region. Not only in the Strait of Hormuz, but also in the Red Sea, through their Houthi proxies armed with Iranian missiles. They will launch equally crippling attacks on Saudi oil fields, whose air defenses couldn’t stop drones and cruise missiles last time when the Houthis tested them. Even less defended are desalination plants on the Persian Gulf and Red Sea coasts – the source of most drinking water for Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf kingdoms. Once the supply of fresh water is destroyed, their populations will die quickly or flee.   There will be nobody left to operate the oil fields, the pipelines and the ports. Fuel prices will jump through the roof across the world. Putin will throw another party in Trump’s honor.

There would also be nobody left to service the U.S. military bases around the Gulf. Oh, and those bases will be attacked too. Along with U.S. embassies, ships and economic targets. It used to be that the U.S. owned a monopoly on drone and missile strikes. But increasingly, the U.S. is facing the possibility of being on the receiving end of its own favorite medicine. Proliferation of drone technology and development of hypersonic missiles by Russia and China (who will be happy to supply them to Iran) has narrowed the firepower gap between the U.S. and its likely opponents. Finally, while bombing will undoubtedly slow down Iran’s nuclear development, it will not stop it entirely.

In sum, the Iranian response could bring down the whole row of dominoes across the Gulf, and with it the foundation of America’s remaining presence in the region. Not to mention, the global economy at large. This could become a very expensive bucket of popcorn. At some point, the U.S. may be forced to pull the plug on the carnage. Because Iran, which has nothing to lose, will not back down and will only keep raising the stakes.

When the smoke clears, the Ayatollah will still be there, his nation bloodied but undefeated, chiseling away on nuclear warheads in deep mountain bunkers. The human toll could be staggering, and U.S. influence in the region will only be diminished, if not gone entirely. And Iraq, having expelled the U.S. troops, may become a mostly Iranian-controlled cesspool, threatening its Saudi and Jordanian neighbors.

This is why a long bombing campaign is not worth starting. The best the U.S. can expect to achieve is a stalemate, but the potential downside is losing the entire region. Of course, there’s always the horrific option of the U.S. playing the nuclear card itself and decimating Iran’s population. One would hope that’s not the American way, despite the Hiroshima and Nagasaki precedents. But don’t rule it out. Because… Because, Trump. But short of doing that, the U.S. is not likely to win – and instead could lose very badly.

Can Iran Win?

It depends on how you define winning. What outcome is acceptable for Iran? And compared to what? Sitting passively while U.S. sanctions continue to strangle its economy?

A war would severely damage the Iranian economy. But it is already being pummeled by the sanctions anyway, even in peacetime. Iran’s careful but persistent escalation throughout 2019 – the ships, the drone, the refinery, finally U.S. bases and embassy – suggest that its regime finds this status quo unbearable and sees escalation as the only means to achieve peace on its terms.

The alternative is capitulating to American ultimatums – giving up not only nuclear development, but also Iran’s strategic role in the region and its hard-fought gains in Syria and Iraq, and ultimately agreeing to political transformations that would end the regime’s grip on power. Even then, there is no assurance that capitulation will bring about sanctions relief, or will stop the U.S. from bombing one day anyway. The Ayatollah has already seen that any deal with the U.S. can be revoked anytime.

On the other hand, Iran may perceive any outcome short of capitulation or complete annihilation as a victory. Simply surviving a few weeks of air war, inflicting a costly toll on the U.S. and its Gulf allies, and achieving an honorable ceasefire without yielding to any U.S. demands would cement Iran’s status as a heroic fortress that Americans cannot take. Rightly or wrongly, Iran may perceive that the U.S. hegemony in the region is in retreat and time is on its side. It could simply wait out the Americans and outlast them.

Finally, the potential upside for Iran in the long run is huge. Most importantly, achieving U.S. withdrawal from Iraq if the entire country rises up against continued American occupation. Igniting a regional firestorm that makes the Gulf monarchies crumble and the Dow Jones lose half of its value. Maybe even negotiating some sanctions relief as the price of ceasefire and restoring the nuclear deal that should never have been torn up in the first place.

Given the potential upside and lack of catastrophic downside (compared to doing nothing), Iran will be inclined to escalate, unless someone offers it an appealing exit ramp. The Europeans have tried and failed, powerless against U.S. economic dominance. This leaves the Chinese and the Russians as the only players who can broker peace, by threatening to support Iran if the U.S. ratchets up the escalation. If that’s where we end up, let’s pray that Trump will make the right choices. Whether you like it or not, our fate is in his hands for at least another year.