SATISH SHARMA - not just Rotigraphy.: Trump is considering a small attack to force Iran to agree to his nuclear deal, and if Tehran refuses, escalate the attacks until Tehran either agrees or the regime falls.

https://x.com/tparsi/status/2024634388684603499

Trita Parsi

The WSJ reports that Trump is considering a small attack to force Iran to agree to his nuclear deal, and if Tehran refuses, escalate the attacks until Tehran either agrees or the regime falls. Here’s why this won’t work. First of all, the “deal” Trump has put forward entails Tehran completely giving up its nuclear program in return for no NEW sanctions, but no actual sanctions relief. This is, of course, a non-starter for Iran. There are hardly any more sanctions the US could impose on Iran. And the current level of sanctions is suffocating the economy. Accepting this deal would not enable Iran to escape its economic dead end, but would only prolong the economic decay while depriving it of the nuclear leverage it believes it needs to free itself from existing sanctions. Second, Trump also tried the idea of a smaller attack, with the Iranians responding symbolically by striking an empty US base back in January. Tehran refused and made clear that any attack would be responded to forcefully. Trump may hope that with a much larger strike force in the region, Tehran will reconsider its response. But it is difficult to see why Tehran would, since caving to this military threat likely will only invite further coercive demands, beginning with conventional military capabilities such as its missile capabilities. That is Iran’s last remaining deterrent against Israel. Without this deterrent, Israel would be more inclined to attack Iran to cement its subjugation of Iran, or alternatively move to collapse the theocratic regime altogether, Tehran fears. Thus, capitulating to Trump’s “deal” would not end the confrontation, but only make Tehran more vulnerable to further attacks by Israel or the US. Thirdly, since the US strategy, according to the WSJ, is to escalate until Tehran caves, and since capitulation is a non-option for Iran, the Iranians are incentivized to strike back right away at the US. The only exit Tehran sees is to fight back, inflict as much pain as possible on the US, and hope that this causes Trump to back off or accept a more equitable deal. In this calculation, Iran would not need to win the war (militarily, it can’t); it would only have to get close to destroying Trump’s presidency before it loses the war by: 1) closing the Strait of Hormuz and strike oil installations in the region in the hope of driving oil prices to record levels and by that inflation in the US; and 2) strike at US bases, ships, or other regional assets and make Trump chose between cormpomise or a forever war in the region, rather than the quick glorius victory he is looking for. An extremely risky option for Iran, but one that Tehran sees as less risky than the capitulation “deal” Trump is seeking to coerce Iran to accept. None of this, of course, serves US interest, has been authorized by Congress, enjoys the support of the American people, enjoys the support of regional allies (save Israel), is compatible with international law, or answers the question: How does this end?

Quote