ABNA24 - An analysis of the behavior and statements of US government officials indicates that Washington is effectively at a loss over how to deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran and is caught between the options of war and a deal.
Six months have passed since the start of the 40-day US-Israeli war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Although the two sides agreed to a ceasefire after 40 days, the truce has not held and has not brought the war to an end. Instead, there have been several rounds of sporadic clashes between the two sides. Now, while there are no signs of movement toward an agreement, the United States is seeking, through what its Treasury Secretary has described as “economic strangulation,” to either force Iran to the negotiating table after creating an economic crisis and impose its demands on Tehran, or launch a new war against Iran.
The important question is: Why does the United States still expect the war option to be effective? The most important answer has to do with America’s declining credibility. Fareed Zakaria, an American commentator, recently wrote: “The Iran war has been a master class in how the credibility of a superpower can be destroyed.”
The United States, which claims to be the hegemon of the international system, has failed to achieve its primary objectives against Iran through military means. Even prominent American strategists such as John Mearsheimer have openly stated that the United States was defeated in the war against Iran. Moreover, the United States has so far failed to bring the Islamic Republic of Iran to the negotiating table and impose its demands on Tehran through economic pressure.
Scott Ritter, a former US military officer and United Nations weapons inspector, says: “Today, no one in the world believes that the United States won this war, and no one in the world today believes that the United States has the capability to carry out anything resembling a major, decisive economic attack. All of this belongs to Donald Trump’s fantasy world.”
Under these circumstances, Trump and his team expect that a new war could enable them to achieve victory over Iran—a prospect viewed with considerable skepticism, even by Americans themselves. As a result, there is no consensus within the US power structure on launching a war against Iran, and some even consider such a move contrary to US interests.
The other question is: Why is the United States not moving toward a genuine agreement with Iran? In fact, although the US administration does not rule out negotiations with Iran, it is not seeking a genuine agreement with Tehran either. The main reason is that the Islamic Republic of Iran is unwilling to submit to Washington’s unjust and illegal demands, such as completely halting uranium enrichment, removing its enriched uranium, or restoring the Strait of Hormuz to the status quo that existed before the 40-day war.
In other words, the United States is seeking to use the negotiating table to impose these demands on the Islamic Republic of Iran, while Tehran has demonstrated that it will not surrender to US demands. Under these circumstances, from the perspective of current US administration officials, any negotiations with Iran would result in Washington having to make concessions to Tehran.
Therefore, while the United States remains at an impasse between resuming the war and reaching an agreement with Iran, and is suffering from confusion over how to proceed, it has put increased economic pressure on Iran on the agenda.
However, the issue is that Iran views increased economic pressure as an act of military aggression and warns that if such pressure continues, it will shift its military strategy from defense to offense.
This warning also suggests that America’s long-standing threat against Iran—that “all options are on the table”—has lost its deterrent effect, and that Iran is no longer afraid of going to war with the United States.
/129
Your Comment