America like any other country thinks about its own interests. The calculation of costs and benefits is key in the decision-making process of American politicians. It would be a bad joke that could lead to tragedy if we were to accept that Washington would make such sizeable military deployments, accompanied by contradictory statements about war or peace, without any calculations.
Moves like the withdrawal of non-emergency government personnel and putting US forces on high alert in Iraq, and the temporary suspension of training of Iraqi forces by Germany and the Netherlands at the advice of the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS) could be considered as maneuvers by the US to coerce Iran into accepting negotiations. If this doesn’t work, then we can expect a limited war on the horizon.
Iran can say it is not interested in war nor negotiation in this crisis, but it cannot say for certain what the other side will do. In this regard, the crisis should be carefully evaluated and monitored in order to find and choose the best possible solutions.
Expecting Iran to put away its nuclear and missile capabilities and regional influence in the Middle East is totally illogical because another Saddam Hussein could invade the country, casting a shadow of war over Iran. In a stable and peaceful environment where logic of negotiation rules supreme, a strong Middle East would be able to weather this crisis through a balance of power – a crisis that if not contained will have widespread ramifications. After eight devastating years of war with Iraq in the 1980s, it is clear that Iran is not interested in war any more than any other country in the region. But this does not mean Iran will give in to the humiliation of surrender.
US President Donald Trump has been able to improve America’s economic situation, but he tainted America’s credibility with his policy on Iran. The continuation of such actions by Trump could inflict serious damage to the US claim of world leadership. The collapse of communism had diverted attention away from the inhuman aspects of capitalism, but since Trump has taken office, the real face of imperialism is shown to the world once again.
Brussels, Beijing, and Moscow have not reacted to the bullying from the White House as much as they are expected to, so far. Of course they may have registered the behavior of the US in the back of their minds and will react to it in proper time and place. What is important to note is that their possible reactions to America’s antics cannot be interpreted as coming in relation to Iran. This was evident when Iran suspended some of its commitments under the nuclear accord (the JCPOA). Not only did China, the European signatories, and Russia fail to support Iran, they even criticized Tehran’s decision.
In conclusion, the US is the main cause of the current crisis regarding Iran. The irrational withdrawal from the JCPOA, designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organisation, imposition of sanctions, efforts to drive Iran’s oil exports to zero, and sanctions on Iran’s metal sector are all about putting maximum pressure on Iran to force Tehran to surrender or enter a possible war.
It is crystal clear to the international community that we in Iran do not want war and it is the US that is pursuing conflict. Trump’s language and political behavior are targeting Iran. Pondering on President Vladimir Putin’s remarks that Russia is not a firefighter when asked about the survival of the JCPOA, it appears that Iran must resist this bullying, and pay the price for Trump’s behavior that threatens the global order and stability, all by itself on behalf of the world.
Iran has to avoid the traps of Trump and his known and unknown supporters. Tehran should adopt a peaceful position in language that Trump understands. Perhaps then it will be possible to change the circumstances of the game and turn today’s threat into an opportunity for the future.
Sadegh Maleki is a former Iranian diplomat and political analyst.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
