In recent weeks, the situation around Iran has once again escalated after Donald Trump's unprecedentedly tough statement addressed to the Iranian authorities. "Never, ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before. We are no longer a country that will stand for your demented words of violence & death. Be cautious," Trump tweeted. It was the US president's response to the statements made by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani about the power of the Iranian army. Rouhani previously urged the United States "not to pull the lion's tail," in order not to regret it for life - obviously representing his own country as a lion.
The escalation of confrontation between Tehran and Washington is linked to the firm intention of the Americans to impose sanctions on the countries that will take the risk of trading with Iran after November 4, 2018 - the deadline given by the US to the rest of the world to stop their oil cooperation with Iran. The fact that Donald Trump has been serious is also evidenced by a warning letter, recently sent by the Republican senators to Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.
The Iranians also have no plans to give up. On the one hand, they are preparing for US sanctions, seeking workarounds and loopholes, such as the Oil-for-Food Programme. At the same time, Iran does not exclude regional military pressure - this is how the threat of blocking the Strait of Hormuz, voiced by the Iranian president, should be perceived. If the Iranians take this step, oil supplies from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the UAE will be limited. However, these threats are not new - even Iranian president Rouhani's predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly threatened to play the "Hormuz" card in the midst of the international crisis. How real is the new Middle East war, and what domestic and foreign policy factors can play a role?
According to Margret Johannsen, an expert on the Middle East at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, President Trump has been under pressure from the US Congress, both from the Democrats and from the Republicans. He has been accused of giving rein to Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting in Helsinki at the expense of US interests.
According to Johansson, the threatening "tweet" addressed to Iran is, first of all, a distracting maneuver. "But Iran is also under pressure. Due to the people's dissatisfaction with the economic situation in the country and the prospect of tough economic sanctions from the US after Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, Iran's divided political and religious elites are trying to close ranks, using verbal threats," the expert believes.
At the same time, according to the analyst, neither the US nor Iran is really interested in the war of words becoming a real war. For the US, a full military confrontation with Iran will be much more costly than the US wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003. Such a war will require political and military resources to the detriment of Washington's security interests in relations with Russia and North Korea. In the case of a massive strike by the US military, Iran also has no chance to resist in military terms - ultimately, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, unlike the US. Both sides, the US and Iran,know that further escalation threatens to lose control over the situation. "The factor of unpredictability of players is growing in the current war of words, and we cannot exclude the possibility of one side's miscalculation with regard to the opposing side's plans. However, it still just doesn't feel like the US or Iran are planning concrete steps that would lead to a real war," the expert believes.
Analyst Adnan Tabatabai, an expert on Iran at the Bonn Center for Applied Research in Partnership with the Orient (CARPO), expressed a similar view: "On the one hand, President Donald Trump is under pressure because of his ambiguous statements during the NATO summit and the meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Moreover, the FBI investigation against the US president is still underway. Trump is to distract the public from it with his tough rhetoric on the external front - Iran is the hardest hit. In addition, Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo both have huge anti-Iranian enthusiasm, and such outbursts will be regularly observed in the future. The violation and, ultimately, withdrawal from the nuclear deal by the US only strengthened anti-American stereotypes in Iran. In addition, Iran's ruling elite believes that US threats should be responded with even tougher rhetoric. Such rhetoric unites internal political forces during severe crises that will have to be overcome by the country."
"If the escalation in Syria had such horrific consequences, then try to imagine consequences of the war in Iran. I do not see any indication that anyone in Tehran would like it to happen. Donald Trump is also not famous for being a supporter of inciting wars. As for John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, however, I would not be so sure," Adnan Tabatabai noted.
Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy believes that Donald Trump's cabinet is considering its confrontational course against Iran as an opportunity to weaken the Iranian government by bringing Iran's economy and currency down. In turn, Knights noted that the Iranian regime is also trying to isolate Trump's government in the international arena and gain public support. Tehran is trying to form alliances with Russia and China, which would protect Iran from economic and military pressure.
"Iran, with the help of its special services, is also trying to put pressure on the West - for example, with the help of cyber attacks on Saudi energy facilities, threats of blocking the important oil route - the Strait of Hormuz - and attacks on Israeli and US military in the region with the help of allied military formations," the American expert emphasized.
The expert of the German Association of Foreign Policy (DGAP), Josef Braml, believes that the military scenario is real. "After the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, we may soon expect consequences. If Trump and his security advisers, including hardliners like John Bolton, come to the conclusion that Iran is making an atomic bomb, they will react quickly and carry out preventive strikes against Iran. Thus, Trump and his advisers not just want to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons and its ambitions as a regional power, but also to cross out China's geopolitical plans. Military strikes against Iran will cause instability in a region, which is located very far from the United States. The war will complicate the life of the US competitor - China. It is not able to get the raw materials he needs from this region quickly. Thus, China will become more dependent on Russian oil and gas, which Russia will be able to sell at higher prices, taking into account the instability in the Middle East. For this reason, Russia, with the exception of verbal protests, is unlikely to seriously oppose the actions of the United States. Moscow ruling circles urgently need higher prices for energy raw materials in order to stabilize the economy, which is dependent on oil and gas exports, and thus the political system," Josef Braml told the German media.
"The price effect prompted by military strikes on Iran would also be welcomed by the US producers of shale gas, whose fate is currently under threat due to high production costs and credit burden. A significant increase in oil prices, on the one hand, will lie heavy on US energy consumers. On the other hand, they will save the US energy industry from bankruptcy, and the US financial and economic system - from direct large-scale consequences.
The current US president is also interested in military action against Iran for domestic political reasons - due to the Congress midterm elections in November. In the case of targeted attacks on Iran, he can count on the effect of "bringing together" the electorate around the country's leader against the background of military operations.
An alternative scenario would be much more dangerous for Trump: as a rule, American presidents lose the first interim elections. If the Democrats manage to regain control of both houses of Congress passes, and the Mueller investigation finds compromising material on Trump, it would put Trump on the path to impeachment," the expert of the German Association of Foreign Policy concluded.
