By Tom Fowdy
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared "an end to all major combat operations" in Iran, following a war waged by the President that has failed to yield sufficient results, yet with a blockade of Iranian ports remaining in place and Tehran also declaring the Strait of Hormuz shut. Audiences should interpret the United States as subsequently shelving the Iran issue, recognise that a true "deal" is highly unlikely, and that we are now entering the age of a frozen status quo. Here's why:
The United States has a "no compromise" position when it comes to all adversaries
By default, the United States does not compromise with states it deems as adversaries to the extent of making strategic concessions, even if it does not wish to escalate further. This is because, since 1991, American foreign policy has been premised on the a priori position of supremacy. As a result, foreign policymakers believe that making serious concessions to adversaries for the cause of peace undermines America's long-term advantages and only makes them stronger. Thus, even if the US seeks de-escalation, it does not hinge on its fundamental strategic goals and instead reverts to a position of "status quo" containment as a minimalist guarantee.
Although Trump, as an individual, is often willing to make concessions if he gets the correct deal, his efforts are often thwarted by the broader US national security bureaucracy. As an example of this, Trump was made to back away from giving sanctions relief to North Korea unless it undertook "complete, irreversible, verifiable, denuclearisation" as a compromise deal would legitimize the DPRK as a nuclear state. Similarly, despite Trump's tough rhetoric on Ukraine, he has continued to support Kyiv, even if quietly, and did not seriously enforce his own proposals that Ukraine cede territory to Russia.
When viewed from this perspective, the chances that the United States would make major strategic concessions to Iran just for the sake of reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which would include guarantees by them and Israel not to attack them again, as well as sanctions relief, are a complete non-starter. For all intents and purposes, Trump has already given up on talks with Tehran and has shifted to maintaining an indefinite status quo, which includes upholding the "blockade" and sanctions accordingly. Given that Trump's original strategic goal was regime change, there is no "deal" to be truly had short of Iran's total capitulation to American preferences.
Thus, while the US failed to terminate the Mullahs, it makes zero strategic sense to suddenly "empower" them for the sake of peace, especially when Republicans devoted so much capital to dismantle the "Obama deal" and, of course, the Israel lobby, having been the architects of the Iran policy in the first place, are not going to allow it either. So, there is plainly put, nowhere to go.
Donald Trump has a habit of "claiming victory" and moving on
Key to understanding Trump's strategy in politics is recognising that no matter what happens, he will always claim victory, even if such is a complete inversion of the truth. However, such a position is not delusion, but calculated deception and narrative control. When this comes to foreign policy matters, the President usually seeks to establish conditions for a "symbolic" victory, as opposed to a "literal one" neutralising any specific issues that might come from prolonging the problem, and then subsequently moving on.
As an example of this, from 2017-2018, Donald Trump aggressively called for North Korea to denuclearise. This soon led to negotiations and a series of summits between Trump and Kim Jong-un. The summits, as per the above stance of refusing compromise, did not achieve anything apart from de-escalation and photo optics, but it was enough for Trump to claim he had "solved" North Korea. After declaring victory on this matter, he subsequently moved his foreign policy agenda on.
Likewise, Donald Trump entered the Iran war with the explicit goal of removing the Islamic Republic regime from power, using the words "unconditional surrender." Even when this did not happen, himself and his administration readily claimed victory within days, doing so by continually moving the goalposts as to what the conflict was actually about or hoping to achieve. The President also repeatedly claimed Iran is "begging for a deal" despite evidence to the contrary.
After causing chaos to the global economy and energy markets, the administration negotiated to the point of securing a ceasefire, which they then extended to indefinite. Given a deal was not feasible and Iran refused to reopen the Strait of Hormuz without concessions, Trump subsequently declared a blockade, before later announcing an end to "all major combat operations." Politically speaking, there is nothing more to be done, as the administration continues to profess its wishes for Iran to capitulate.
Conclusions
Iran is likely to remain a frozen conflict. Because the US initiated it without a declaration of war, and a permanent ceasefire is in place, the Trump administration sees a "peace treaty" as a political inconvenience, which would require costly concessions to a state they believed they could remove, exerting leverage of its own. Their strategic goal has always been a strategic subjugation of Iran, in which case, why is it logical to suddenly come out and say, "okay, we messed up, let's make peace and co-exist," and suddenly give Tehran space to reconcile with the rest of the Middle East. If that were not so, why start a war in the first place?
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | How the US works to break 'Multilateralism' in foreign policy as the UAE quits OPEC
Comment