By Tom Fowdy
The US and Iran have reached a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the American embargo of its ports.
This deal, negotiated in Pakistan who served as a mediator, has nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program or the underlying hostility between itself, the US or Israel. The President had been pushing for this agreement in order to alleviate pressure on the economy through energy prices, so he can do what I have always described he does, declare victory and "kick the can down the road."
Last week, I wrote that a broader "peace deal" between the two countries was unlikely. As I noted, "while a smaller deal, or as was put, a memorandum of understanding, to re-open the Strait of Hormuz and at least paint a superficial pathway to peace, is not impossible, I have argued continually that a serious breakthrough is impossible because the foreign policy logic of the United States only accepts total capitulation."
Indeed, that smaller deal has now happened. But what does that really change? The answer is nothing, such a deal is merely to avert a lingering attrition on both sides and ultimately does not change the strategic reality between the two countries at all, because it can't. Even at the time of negotiations moving forward, the United States has continued to slap sanctions on Iran repeatedly, seeking to squeeze its military and financial networks. That's because, as I have frequently argued, the US has no intention of making strategic concessions to Iran.
As a result, even though this peace deal pledges a drawn end to hostilities, it is not a treaty, and nor does either side make any commitments other than to "back off" effectively. The United States, as well as Israel, will happily maintain their privilege to unilaterally bomb Iran or its proxies should they wish to do so, and thus maintain their long-term strategic objective of attempting to contain, cripple and terminate the Iranian regime, even if direct military action failed.
Although Trump's war has been premised on a total miscalculation, which got him into a quagmire, he will apply his strategy of always declaring victory no matter what, and we will no doubt hear bombastic rhetoric as to how Iran's military capabilities have been crippled, how they were begging for a deal, and so on. In reality, though, all this does is kick the can down the road, for Iran has not renounced its uranium enrichment, its ballistic missile program, amongst other things. Thus, this returns to the age-old question again, will Iran capitulate to a list of one-sided US terms in order to obtain sanctions relief and normalisation? The answer is no, it can't, and neither can Washington meet them halfway.
This continually brings me back to the example of the US talks with North Korea in 2018 when he met with Kim Jong-un in Singapore, and later Hanoi. The first meeting was not about actually reaching a true breakthrough deal or "treaty," it was about affirming a symbolic end to the tensions between the two sides, and thus setting out a memorandum of understanding for future talks. However, the Trump administration demanded unilateral capitulation to American strategic preferences in the form of full denuclearisation, an outcome from Pyongyang's perspective was a non-starter. Thus, the outcome was an alleviation of hostilities, but no change to the status quo.
The same is true of the Iran situation: Just with slightly more catastrophic consequences. Both sides made a rudimentary agreement to disengage, they did not suddenly become friends or alleviate their differences, but simply shelved them. The United States will continue to treat Iran as an adversary to be crushed, and in the administration's point of view, the fact Trump launched an entire war to try and get Iran to capitulate, remove its government and thus coercively gain control of its oil supplies, will be rewritten or conveniently forgotten.
The world will be pleased that the Strait of Hormuz will be opened, as it will alleviate fuel costs and a global energy crisis, but this needs to be understood as classic Trump optics. The President always escalates, disengages when things bring about economic costs, but does not actually change the status quo, he just resets the timer. When you look at it like this the Iran war has been a colossal and costly waste of time for everyone involved.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.
Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:
Opinion | Why an Iran 'deal' remains nowhere in sight
Opinion | Trump's 'Military Listing' of Chinese firms is a negotiating ploy
Opinion | Trump's new 'forced labour' gambit is another, indirect shot at China
Comment