Iran: The Squeaky Wheel Wants the Grease
From June 17, 2019
Tensions have escalated in the Persian Gulf, in case you missed it.
The Trump Administration and US intelligence agencies assert that Tehran is behind the attacks on tankers in the region over the past several weeks. A Japanese tanker was hit while the Japanese Prime Minister was dealing directly with the the Mullahs to de-escalate the situation. Bellicose statements fly, and it appears that there is a better-than-even chance that the US might directly engage Iranian military forces for the first time since the Reagan years.
As great as it would feel to hit the Iranians in the proverbial jaw, I would advise against it.
Not because the Iranians are innocent. Or that the US is partially to blame because we put them in a box and left them no choice. (An argument that you hear often, but I can’t even follow. How are the effects of tightening sanctions and closer cooperation with the Gulf states relieved by attacking oil tankers?) Rather, we must refrain from attacks, either sustained or pin-prick, because it is what the Iranians want.
The truth is, those sanctions are working. And as they are tightened, the regime is feeling the pressure. Ten years after the uprisings that Obama ignored, things in the Islamic Republic aren’t really any better. The billions of dollars Obama sent to Tehran didn’t seem to make it to people — sorry Andrew Yang, no Freedom Dividend for Iranians. The leadership is scared, and they need something to either distract the people, or someone else who can blamed for the suffering. An military confrontation with the US, Tehran believes, would give them both.
That may or may not work. Totalitarian regimes have long blamed the outside world for the suffering of their beleaguered populations. There is ample evidence that, despite the propaganda fed to them, ordinary Cubans, East Germans, Venezuelans, etc. etc. realized that their plight was homegrown. Would the average Iranian, most of whom are too young to remember the Shah’s police state and have known only war and economic isolation under the Ayatollahs, rise up to defend the state if some naval facilities and air defense equipment was attacked.? Unlikely. But possible. And is the risk of that possibility worth a couple docks or radar sites?
I can’t see how it could be, especially given the likely response. Iran would seek to prolong any low level conflict, and would continue to engage in provocative actions. More attacks on tankers. Increase in pressure on US assets in Iraq. A likely surge in Hamas attacks on Israel. Iran has no lack of fingers on pressure points that can be used to harm American interests and allies in the region.
Of course, I fully recognize that if the attacks that have already taken place do not provoke a response, then Iran may nonetheless pursue a path of escalation, on the assumption that sooner or later they would cross a line that can’t be ignored. It must be made clear to Tehran that if they choose that course, the consequences might not be the low level conflict they seem to crave. Unfortunately, I don’t think the precise, measured and gravely serious tone in which that message would need to be delivered can be achieved in 280 characters.