Vali Nasr, an expert on Iranian affairs and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, said that the United States and Iran are sliding back into war not because of a misunderstanding of the terms of the memorandum of understanding.
The author of "Iran's Grand Strategy" added, "While the memorandum was indeed vague and open to interpretation, its main flaw lay in its foundation on maintaining the balance of power at the time of its signing—a balance that Washington was determined to alter, and Tehran was determined to protect."
Vali Nasr argues that the United States initiated the war in February with the aim of toppling the Islamic Republic, or at least forcing it to accept American dictates that would restrict its nuclear program and regional role. However, the war granted Iran a strategic victory by securing control of the Strait of Hormuz, a setback that compelled the United States to agree to the memorandum of understanding.
Iranian leaders suspected that the memorandum was merely a temporary retreat by the United States, intended to alleviate pressure on the global economy and prepare for another round of conflict. Indeed, US Vice President J.D. Vance publicly indicated that President Donald Trump favored the agreement because it would give America time to replenish its dwindling strategic petroleum reserves.
They found ample evidence to support their suspicions: Iranian assets remained frozen, a US-brokered deal between Israel and Lebanon ignored Iran's demands for a ceasefire there, more US military assets began arriving in the Gulf region, and Washington encouraged commercial vessels to disregard Tehran's instructions to coordinate with its authorities and sail through Iranian channels while transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Some ships even used channels near the Omani coast.
The expert explains that Washington expected this would weaken Iran's control over the strait and its ability to exert influence.
He continues, "Each of these actions, individually, may not constitute a major violation of the memorandum of understanding, but together they represent a coordinated effort to undermine the leverage Iran gained during the war and which was reflected in the ceasefire agreement."
He notes that Iran's rulers believe that any show of restraint will only lead to further US pressure.
“To deter the United States and force it to negotiate seriously to end the war and reach a broader nuclear agreement that grants Tehran the security and economic recovery it craves, they believe Iran must be aggressive and escalate the conflict beyond what the United States can tolerate,” he explained.
He pointed out that the only leverage Iran is unwilling to relinquish is its claim to the Strait of Hormuz, emphasizing that losing this control would deprive Iran of any leverage in future negotiations.
Iranian leaders have decided that maintaining control of the Strait is essential to securing future gains at the negotiating table and ensuring the United States adheres to the agreement rather than withdrawing from it. The massive public turnout at
the funeral of the
late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei last week was a significant factor in convincing Iran’s leaders that the people would support a hardline stance on the Strait of Hormuz, which has become a national issue.
In this context, Iran decided to thwart US plans to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by attacking two oil tankers sailing near the Omani coast. This show of force provoked a large-scale and deliberate US response: an extensive bombing campaign to destroy Iranian drone and missile batteries along the Gulf coast, as well as military and civilian infrastructure throughout the country, with the aim of raising the cost of resistance.
But Iran had anticipated the war and may have even initiated it earlier than expected, indicating that Tehran sees this as an advantage: “If war is inevitable, it is better for Iran to launch it before the US has a chance to fully regroup and before the global economy recovers from the energy and supply chain shocks.”
Therefore, Iran will seek to absorb US military pressure and intensify its attacks on US military targets, energy infrastructure, and civilian infrastructure throughout the Gulf, aiming to signal that the war will not remain at the level chosen by Washington.
Meanwhile, Tehran will accept the inevitable economic hardships that will result from another US naval blockade, believing that its pressure on the global economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz, and potentially the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and the Red Sea, will force Trump to back down first.
Iran’s leaders may be overestimating their ability to pursue this strategy, but they believe their willingness to escalate has served the country well in the initial phase of the conflict, and that war may be the only way to persuade Trump to take diplomacy seriously.
In concluding his analysis, Vali Nasr asserts that the Iranian regime is fighting an existential battle, betting that its willingness to endure further pain will give it leverage at the negotiating table in the future.
Bad
ReplyDelete