Daily Times

The world was spared an imminent military conflict with Iran-for the time being at least-whenTrump, reportedly, at the last moment, withdrew his orders to attack Iran’s military facilities. This attack was meant to punish Iran for daring to bring down an American unmanned drone on an intelligence-gathering mission over Iranian air space, as claimed by Tehran. The US was thus warned that Iran would defend its sovereignty and borders.

The US, on the other hand, claimed that the drone was over international air space, and hence Iran was guilty of provocation. Trump tweeted that Iran had made a big mistake, implying that it would be suitably dealt with.

This has happened in the wake of some oil tankers hit in the regional waters with some sort of explosives causing damage, which the US and its regional ally, Saudi Arabia, blame on Iran. One of the tankers hit by an explosive, said to be a mine or a flying object, was a Japanese ship, coinciding with the Iranian visit of the Japanese prime minister on some sort of a mediating mission to ease the tensions between Iran and the US.

It defies any logic that the Iranians would target a Japanese tanker right when Japan’s prime minister was on a friendly mission there.

Despite the case made by the US for Iranian involvement on attacks on tankers, on the basis of some video footage, it doesn’t seem to find ready acceptance. One very practical question is: why would Iran invite deadly retribution when it is already under siege by the United States, which has been building up a case to go after Iran ever since the unilateral US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran? The deal was meant to limit Iran’s nuclear programme, which, it was, by most accounts, including the US intelligence, adhering to.

If Iran or one of its regional proxies did hit the oil tankers, in that case Iran doesn’t consider itself as vulnerable as the US might think. At the very least, it can seriously disrupt the global oil supply through the narrow Strait of Hormuz.

It defies any logic that the Iranians would target a Japanese tanker right when Japan’s prime minister was on a friendly mission there

Trump has threatened Iran’s obliteration in the wake of the downing of the US drone. But he said that he held back from attacking some Iranian military targets out of concern for Iranian civilian casualties, which his advisers told him would be about 150 lives. Therefore, out of the kindness of his heart, Trump decided to spare Iran for the time being, though saying enigmatically that he would see what happens. And that all options are on the table.

It is true that Iran has much to lose in any eventual conflict with the US, being the weaker party. It is economically already on a US chokehold, with the US threatening to tighten it further. But, so far, and if the past experience of the 1980s’ Iran-Iraq war is any guide, the US is not going to have an easy ride.

Unless the momentum so far created by the US leads into a war that neither side wants, the situation is more of brinkmanship with the US seemingly assured that Iran has nowhere to turn, even though the other signatories to the 2015 nuclear accord (the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) still uphold it. And Iran’s decision to soon start enriching uranium above the limit set by the 2015 accord is essentially meant to pressure European signatories to ease Iran’s economic conditions by starting economic relations with it, notwithstanding US sanctions.

Trump is playing the sticks and carrot game. He is saying that the US will obliterate Iran eventually if it doesn’t surrender. In other words, it should come to the table for a deal. And the deal is already obvious that Iran should scrap its nuclear and missile programme, as well as its independent regional role, in return for the US friendship.

As Trump has said clearly, “The fact is we’re not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon.” Iran’s commitments under the now scrapped 2015 nuclear deal are considered worthless. And if Iran comes to the negotiating table, implying that it now accepts the validity of the US abrogation, the US would become its friend, opening for Iran its great economic potential.

To quote Trump, “And when they agree to that [to scrap their nuclear programme], they are going to have a wealthy country, they’re going to be so happy, and I am going to be their best friend. I hope that happens…but it may not.”

The events surrounding Iran are happening so fast it is difficult to predict what might happen tomorrow or the day after. And if it blows up, the US might have set in motion another Iraq-like chaos, which is difficult to comprehend. And this overreach of the US power will further contribute to the US decline, which is already evident.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia