Commentary: Neither side is hurting enough to end the US-Iran war

Summary

Commentary: Neither side is hurting enough to end the US-Iran war What is more worrying is the possibility of renewed escalation, says international security professor Stefan Wolff. BIRMINGHAM, England: Is the ceasefire holding or is the war in limbo, after a second round of US-Iran talks failed to take place over the weekend? On Saturday (Apr 25), US President Donald Trump cancelled his negotiators’ trip to the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, blaming “tremendous infighting and confusion” within Iran’s leadership. “Nobody knows who is in charge, including them,” he wrote. Still, there appears to be some backchannel diplomacy going on. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held talks with Pakistani and Omani mediators before meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials in Saint Petersburg. There, he told reporters that Iran was considering a request from the US for negotiations. Meanwhile, US officials said Iran had proposed, via Pakistan, to loosen its grip on the Strait of Hormuz if the US lifted its naval blockade and ended the war. The proposal would also decouple the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme from these negotiations – a likely non-starter for the US. It is clear both sides still hold the same positions as at the start of the war, and neither expects much progress anytime soon. CAREFUL CLIMBDOWNS NEEDED Does this mean the war will stay stuck in limbo for many more weeks, possibly months? That is a real possibility. An unresolved situation could mean sporadic escalations of violence that underscores the need for a negotiated solution. The public grandstanding by both sides is simply not conducive to credible talks. Painstaking, detail-oriented work will be required to hammer out a deal. If both sides will not budge from maximalist positions, climbdowns must be carefully choreographed to allow both Washington and Tehran to save face. Iran cannot win militarily, but it will be reluctant to give up the power it now wields in the Strait of Hormuz, even as the negative consequences of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz for the global economy grow each day and will take longer and longer to unwind once the war ends. Mr Trump’s obsession with getting a better nuclear deal than former President Barack Obama is not helpful either. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was far from perfect, but most of the highly enriched uranium that justified concerns about Iranian intentions was produced after Mr Trump pulled out of the deal in 2018. And given the deep mistrust of Mr Trump in Iran, it is unlikely that the regime will agree to his tough conditions on its nuclear programme. At the same time, Washington is right to be suspicious of Iran’s suggestion to decouple nuclear talks from a ceasefire and the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz. This does not indicate that Iran is entering talks in good faith either. HARD TO RESTART SERIOUS NEGOTIATIONS The question is what it will take to get them to start negotiating seriously again. At present, Washington or Tehran do not see themselves in a “mutually hurting stalemate”. This refers to a situation where neither side can escalate towards victory and negotiating is the only way forward to avoiding a worse outcome. Iran may be suffering badly economically, but the pain threshold for the regime is clearly much higher than the US and Israel initially thought. After all, this war is now in its ninth week. Mr Araghchi’s visit to St Petersburg also indicates that Iran is not as isolated as could have been expected. China has been less forthcoming with the kind of political support that Russia has just provided, but if Beijing is putting any pressure on Tehran to re-enter into negotiations with Washington, it has been doing so very quietly – and not very effectively so far. For the US, too, the consequences may be mounting, but they are far from reaching a breaking point for Mr Trump. Inflation and the cost of living are clearly a concern ahead of mid-term elections in November, as is the danger of being stuck in yet another “forever-war” in the Middle East, which Mr Trump explicitly campaigned against. Mr Trump said last week that Americans should expect to pay higher petrol prices “for a little while”, currently at a national average of about US$4 per gallon compared to his campaign promise to bring it below US$2 per gallon. A Reuters/Ipsos poll last week showed that voters across the political spectrum blame Mr Trump for higher petrol costs. But falling approval ratings have yet to translate into a course correction over Iran. A THIRD AIRCRAFT CARRIER What is more worrying than a low-intensity conflict with no incentives for either side to talk is the alternative – the possibility of renewed escalation. The US has continued building up resources in the Middle East over the last two-and-a-half weeks since the initial temporary truce agreed between Washington and Tehran. It has deployed a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, the USS George HW Bush. Amassing such unprecedented firepower in the region is likely intended to send a signal of strength and resolve to Tehran: A full-scale resumption of the war remains available as an option to Mr Trump, who has repeatedly threatened such a move. As the current break in the fighting is also likely to have given America and its allies in the region an opportunity to replenish their air defences, this is clearly a worrying prospect for Iran, the Gulf states and the global economy. It would not be the first time that Mr Trump has used the ruse of actual or potential negotiations to lure Tehran into a false sense of security before pouncing again. But for all his bravado, his shifting ultimatums suggest a reluctance to follow through. This may be a sign that he realises military escalation offers no clear path to victory. But it does not suggest he has found an alternative winning strategy either. Stefan Wolff is Professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham.