of weekend strike exchange between Iran and Israel has put US President Donald Trump under even more domestic and international pressure to end the unpopular war he started with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more than three months ago.
The Israeli leader favors continuing the war until Iran is reduced to a weak state. This would enable him to win the Israeli general election later this year and advance his goal of expanding Israel’s borders and regional dominance in pursuit of a so-called “Great Israel.”
Netanyahu is opposed to any US-Iran deal that does not meet his objectives. Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon to repel the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group is a part of its strategy that has been boldly opposed by Iran.
Tehran, meanwhile, has shown a strong resilience to ensure that the war is decided in its favor as a formidable regional actor.
As a result, Trump faces the difficult task of reaching an acceptable deal with Iran and reining in a recalcitrant Netanyahu.
Why has the stalemate lasted so long?
At this point in the war, what would constitute a “victory” for Trump?
He wants an outcome that can justify his decision to go to war – a decision that has turned out to be very costly, generating a worldwide energy crisis and great economic pain. The war could cause Trump political problems in the US midterm elections later this year.
He also wants a deal on Iran’s nuclear program that he can claim is better than that 2015 agreement Tehran struck with the Obama administration and its international partners, called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Trump withdrew the US from the agreement in 2018.
But Iran’s Islamic government has so far been unwilling to bend to Trump’s demands.
Relying on a mixture of ideological commitment to Shia Islam, a strong sense of historical nationalism, and an effective military capability, the regime has not only survived, it has strategic gains.
It has destroyed or damaged many US bases in the Persian Gulf, hit Israel hard with missile and drone strikes and, above all, taken control of the Strait of Hormuz. The strait – a critical choke point for oil and fertilizer – has now become Iran’s most powerful lever of resistance and punishment.
The conflict has also given birth to the Islamic government and its instruments of power. Many citizens who were against the regime have gathered around the flag in the face of external threats and for the love of their country.
Further, the war has pushed the government’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, designated by the US and many of its allies as a terrorist organization, to new heights. It was possible prove its worth as the main actor defending Iran and its Islamic system.
Meanwhile, Tehran is not as isolated as the Trump administration believes. It has the support of Russia and China. And Iran’s geographic location has worked to its advantage, enabling access to markets by road through its neighbors and through the Caspian Sea to the north.
The US and Israel still have the upper hand when it comes to military power and can inflict serious damage on Iran. But Tehran’s strategic gains have put it in a stronger negotiating position in the peacemaking process.
Regardless of the level of US military and economic pressure, Tehran is unlikely to give in to US and Israeli demands to dismantle its nuclear program or relinquish control over the Strait of Hormuz.
The regime was designed to be resilient. It has built a system based on defiance, resistance and pragmatic decision-making when faced with serious threats from inside and outside Iran.
As such, it has the patience and endurance to it Trump survived – and, for that matter, Netanyahu.
Echoes of 1979
The regime also has a history of surviving the United States.
For example, there are some parallels that can be drawn between the way the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, dealt with hostage crisis of 1979-81, when a militant group of his supporters ransacked the US embassy and took 66 Americans hostage, and the way his successors are now managing negotiations with the US.
Khomeini let that episode drag on for 444 days, both to consolidate his power and to humiliate the US for supporting the pro-Western monarchy of his predecessor, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.
His approach played a key role in that of then-President Jimmy Carter defeat by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 US presidential election. The regime released the remaining 52 hostages just minutes after Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981.
The current standoff with Iran is only 100 daysand it appears that the regime is now prepared to use a similar strategy to punish Trump and Netanyahu for attacking Iran.
Iran’s leaders seem determined to turn the tables on their opponents and humiliate them. Whether they succeed will depend on what Trump does next — and what he is willing to compromise to bring Iran to the table for a lasting and mutually acceptable deal.
Amin Saikal is professor emeritus of Middle Eastern studies at Australian National UniversityUniversity of Western Australia AND Victoria University.
This article was reprinted from Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read on original article.
