Israel-Iran Conflict: From Local Success to Regional Ruin?

Having tasted the sweetness of Israel’s impressive success in destroying many sensitive sites in Iran and killing top military commanders and nuclear scientists, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has now raised the ante by seeking regime change with Trump’s implicit agreement.

Demanding Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” the U.S. President has joined the fray.  Meanwhile, the Israeli defense minister has threatened that Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei must be eliminated.

Donald Trump has chimed in, citing the possibility of killing Ayatollah Khamenei: “We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.”

This course of events could obviously lead to a regional conflagration with disastrous consequences.

The threat to kill Khamenei

What sort of global order will we be living in if every head of state can simply kill the head of another state only because there is a serious disagreement between them? Have we learned nothing from invading Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein?

On May 1st, 2003, President George W. Bush declared aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, “mission accomplished,” hoping that the removal of Hussein would lead to a more democratic and stable Iraq.

But now we know what happened. We did not liberate but handed Iraq over to Iran, throwing Iraq and the region into greater turmoil, and Tehran benefited the most from the US’ folly.

More than 4,400 American troops were killed and 32,000 wounded, and at a staggering cost of $1.6 trillion. Should Trump go through with his foolish threat, Iran can inflict incalculable damage on U.S. military installations in the region and bring to a halt oil shipments by closing the Straits of Hormuz, causing global economic havoc.

Trump and the second coming of Harry Truman?

The U.S. ambassador to Israel, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, is a strong supporter of the expansion of Israel’s settlements. He recently messaged Trump suggesting that he to listen to the voice of God.

Apparently referencing Truman’s decision to use a nuclear weapon on Japan at the end of World War II, Huckabee told Trump: “No President in my lifetime has been in a position like yours. Not since Harry Truman in 1945.”

Tempting Trump and the real world

How about a much better, peaceful resolution over Iran’s nuclear program?  It can be achieved if it also incorporates a long-term political solution between Iran and the United States and, by extension, Israel.

Concurrent political negotiations would mitigate some of the mutual distrust that has plagued the talks about Iran’s nuclear program and led to the horrific Israeli-Iranian war.

Khamenei’s reaction to Trump’s threat reflects the views of everyone who knows Iran. Iran could make significant concessions and even lose the war, but it would never surrender, be humiliated and lose its dignity.

Dignity matters

Having been endowed with a rich history, culture and enormous human and natural resources, Iranian national pride is embedded not only in the psyche of the clergy — but also in the minds of all Iranians.

To this day, many Iranians resent the United States for orchestrating the 1953 overthrow of the Mosaddegh government.  At the time, the United States justified its action by expressing fears of the growing communist influence and the need to protect Western interests.

Negotiations clouded by mistrust

The U.S.-Iran negotiations were clouded by mistrust and were focused on the nuclear conflict, specifically on Iran’s adamant refusal to give up its right to enrich uranium. The justifiable mutual mistrust made the prospect of reaching an agreement extremely difficult.

While Iran has consistently claimed that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon, and its atomic program is for medical and energy purposes, it has lied time and again by enriching uranium to 60% purity and in sufficient quantity to produce 10 nuclear weapons once enriched to 90% purity.

Conversely, Iran has every reason not to trust the United States, especially Trump, not only because of his flip-flop between readiness to negotiate and threats to join Israel’s war, but because it was Trump himself who canceled the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Now he wants to exact a better deal to brag that he outsmarted President Obama.

A parallel track diplomacy

To be sure, reaching an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is not, in and of itself, sufficient to end the Israeli-Iranian conflict and necessarily stabilize the region. Given the mistrust between the United States and Iran, undertaking a parallel track to discuss long-term relations between the two countries, culminating in the normalization of relations, would achieve three goals.

First, it would mitigate over time some of the mistrust and make the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program not stand-alone but part and parcel of normalization of relations with all the advantages that carries.

Second, a parallel track would dramatically ease the Iranian clergy’s dread of a forced regime change, which they fear the most, and pressure them to show greater flexibility.

Negotiate with Iran from a position of strength

Now that Israel has destroyed much of Iran’s nuclear and military complexes, the United States can negotiate with Iran from a position of strength — but must make it possible for Iran to relent without being humiliated to prevent the impression that it is surrendering to U.S. demands.

It is not too late to heed Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s calls for a cease-fire, as he expressed his readiness to resume the negotiations immediately, suggesting that Iran would stop its retaliatory attack once Israel halts its aerial onslaught.

The contours of an agreement

Three different possibilities would resolve Iran’s demand to exercise “its right” to enrich uranium.

1. Allow Iran to enrich uranium to 4-5% purity under the strictest monitoring by the IAEA that would include U.S. monitors.

2. Allow Iran to retain short-term enrichment rights to 3-5% at a limited quantity for peaceful purposes, while aligning with long-term U.S. non-proliferation goals.

3. Permit Iran to retain symbolic pilot-scale facilities under strict oversight by the IAEA, which mirrors the 2015 arrangement.

Under any agreement, Iran will be required to transfer all of its stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% to any country acceptable to the United States.

Critical political components

Other than agreeing on the disposition of Iran’s nuclear program, the United States must incorporate three other critical political components that would bolster any accord reached on the nuclear program, but also reach an understanding with and commitment by Iran to show good faith and keen interest by agreeing to the following:

1. Iran must cease threatening Israel existentially because as long as Israel is threatened, it has every right to defend itself, including pre-emptively attacking Iran, preventing future conflagration and ensuring regional stability.

2. Iran must end any financial aid and military support to its so-called “axis of resistance.” Iran’s main proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, have largely been decimated by Israel, and Iran can now see the futility of supporting such groups.

Instead, Iran can exert regional influence through its sheer human and natural resources and geostrategic location.

3. Finally, Iran must no longer meddle in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and exploit it for its own benefit. It must leave it to Saudi Arabia, the United States, Israel and the Palestinians to find an enduring solution that meets the aspirations of both people.

Trump’s opportunity

Trump has stated many times that he is proud not to have started a war under his watch.  Now, he has a golden opportunity to build on that record by capitalizing on Israel’s military successes and take credit for helping Israel downgrade Iran’s military capability and nuclear program dramatically.

He should accept Pezeshkian’s call for a ceasefire and readiness to resume the nuclear negotiations. Trump will find the Iranian side far more flexible than in the past because it desperately want to end the war and prevent the United States from entering the fray.

The wisdom of heeding advice

Trump should heed the Greek philosopher Phaedrus’s advice: “Success leads many astray to their ruin.”  After all, Trump and Netanyahu could lose what they have already gained.

Both must bear in mind that the war has now reached a perilous crossroads and could engulf the region in an all-out war.

Conclusion

It would be a tragic mistake if Trump decides to join Netanyahu, who is obviously eager to draw the United States into the war, hoping that this would bring about the collapse of the regime without considering the horrific repercussions.

Trump should not be persuaded by Netanyahu to get the United States into a war that no one wants except Netanyahu. Trump’s ego is best served if he emerges as a peacemaker who not only solved the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, but also ushered in a new era of regional stability and peace.

The prospect of normalization of relations between the United States and Iran will be most effective in dissuading Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

Yes, this may be too hopeful and optimistic, but then again, we must never give up trying.