Escalating its response to the killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Iran took two new steps against America on Sunday.
At the lower end, Iranian-directed militias launched rockets against the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. These attacks indicate Iran’s desire to keep the United States off-balance as it prepares for more significant retaliation. Soleimani was a near-unique theological-political-military figure for the Iranian regime, matched only by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Some suggest Iran will retaliate with more rocket attacks or via a cyber strike, but I believe Iran’s response will almost certainly come in a more noticeable fashion. These rockets are just a warm-up.
More concerning was Iran’s announcement that it would cease to observe any limits on its enrichment of uranium, the precursor material to a nuclear warhead. This means that Iran has effectively shredded the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama.
Iran will blame the Trump administration for the agreement’s collapse, but it reflects a reality that has been emerging for months now. Namely, Iran’s dissatisfaction with European efforts to salvage that agreement. U.S. sanctions reintroduced following President Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the agreement have imposed greatly damaged the Iranian economy, weakening the regime’s ability to export its revolution and to placate its increasingly restive population. This announcement is a desperate Iranian effort to see the Europeans corral President Trump into a more conciliatory approach toward them.
So, how should Trump address these new concerns?
Well, on the rocket issue, the best answer is to do nothing. As long as American citizens are not seriously wounded or killed, U.S. interests are best served by allowing the Iranians to fire off a few rockets and vent. That might not seem palatable to many Americans, but we must remember the political context here.
Consider, for example, that the Iraqi parliament voted on Sunday to call on the government to order all U.S. military forces out of Iraq. That unwelcome development plays to Iran’s control over Iraqi politics, and the furthering of sectarian divisions that led to ISIS 2013 rise to power. The U.S. has a key interest in maintaining positive influence in Baghdad. Acting prudently, the Shia nationalist Iraqi political blocs might yet remain apart from Tehran.
The nuclear issue is obviously more complicated. Yet, with Britain and France having warned Iran that they would reimpose sanctions should it take the step it has just taken, the international community might now unify in demanding Tehran return to the negotiating table to reach an improved, long-term nuclear proliferation accord. That would involve restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program (designed to carry nuclear warheads onto faraway targets) and a more credible inspections regime.
Regardless, the basic takeaway from this weekend is to buckle up. A lot of uncertainty and risk waits in the weeks ahead.
