Everyone’s talking about the explosion in United States-Iran tensions that culminated in a thankfully relatively mild Iranian retaliatory strike on Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops last night.
There are many reasons one could point to as the source of the surging conflict, from the U.S. drone strike killing Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani to the long history between the two countries and the mutual snake pit that is U.S.-Iran relations over the last 40 years. But far less attention has been dedicated to how we get out of this situation.
Most rational commentators agree that de-escalation and cooler heads are required to inch ourselves away from a conflict.
If last night’s limited response from the Iranians said anything, it was that Tehran doesn’t want an extended fistfight with the U.S. The Iranians could have done a lot more damage last night, but they chose a relatively limited barrage of about a dozen ballistic missiles on buildings at an air base that stored equipment.
As David Schmerler of the Middlebury Institute in California told NPR this morning, “There are other structures at the air base that would be exclusively for people, so maybe they intended to strike sites with equipment over people.” It’s pretty clear that if the Iranians wanted to kill more Americans and start a war, they could have done so.
And, while he may never admit it, President Trump likely realizes he has escaped a worst-case scenario. He would like to reduce tensions but appears too stubborn to change direction in terms of policy. As the president stated in televised remarks this morning, more sanctions are coming. How those sanctions are supposed to aid dialogue was left unexplained. Presumably, the White House still hopes for essentially an Iranian government surrender on Washington’s terms, something Iran hasn’t done to date and is highly unlikely to ever do in the future.
Communication is urgently needed. The channels of communication that do exist, however, are through intermediaries such as Switzerland, Iraq, Qatar, France, the European Union, and even Japan. Those countries can be quite helpful, but they aren’t sufficient for the negotiation Trump claims to want.
Washington and Tehran could tap the New York channel at the United Nations, but the Trump administration’s decision to block Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s visa this week may be an inadvertent wet blanket to resuming the dialogue most believe is necessary. It should be noted that the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors actually had a public pull-aside on the floor of the Security Council a few weeks ago.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo could theoretically send a message to his Iranian counterpart, but he neither sees Zarif as a key decision-maker in Iran or appears very interested in the concept. Brian Hook, the Trump administration’s point man on Iran, also wouldn’t be a suitable choice, given his association with the “maximum pressure” strategy Tehran views as indistinguishable from regime change. And Vice President Mike Pence? Forget about it.
This leaves us in a strange place. Just about everybody understands that an off-ramp to this conflict is as critically needed. Yet the U.S. and Iran are both unsure how to start it. For all of our sake, let’s hope they figure it out soon.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
