The weekend exchange of strikes between Iran and Israel has put US President Donald Trump under even more domestic and international pressure to end the unpopular war he launched with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more than three months ago.
The Israeli leader favors the continuation of the war until Iran is reduced to a feeble state. This would enable him to win the Israeli general elections later this year and further his goal of expanding Israel’s borders and regional domination in pursuit of a so-called “Greater Israel.”
Netanyahu is against any US-Iran deal that doesn’t meet his objectives. Israel’s invasion of southern Lebanon to repel the Iran-backed Hezbollah group is a part of his strategy that has been boldly countered by Iran.
Tehran, meanwhile, has shown a steely resilience to ensure the war is settled in its favor as a formidable regional actor.
As a result of all this, Trump faces the difficult task of reaching an acceptable deal with Iran and restraining an unruly Netanyahu.
Why the standoff has gone on so long
At this point in the war, what would constitute a “victory” for Trump?
He wants an outcome that can vindicate his decision to start the war – a decision that has proved to be very costly, generating a worldwide energy crisis and a great deal of economic pain. The war could cause Trump political problems in the US midterm elections later this year.
He also wants an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program that he can claim is better than the 2015 deal Tehran struck with the Obama administration and its international partners, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Trump withdrew the US from the deal in 2018.
But Iran’s Islamic government so far has not been willing to bend to Trump’s demands.
Relying on a mix of ideological devotion to Shia Islam, a strong sense of historical nationalism and an effective military capability, the regime has not only survived but made strategic gains.
It has destroyed or damaged many US bases in the Persian Gulf, hit Israel hard with missile and drone strikes and, above all, gained control of the Strait of Hormuz. The strait – a critical oil and fertilizer chokepoint – has now become Iran’s most potent lever of resistance and punishment.
The conflict has also given renewed life to the Islamic government and its instruments of power. Many citizens who were opposed to the regime have rallied around the flag in the face of the external threats and for the love of their country.
Further, the war has propelled the government’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is designated by the US and many of its allies as a terrorist organisation, to new heights. It has been able to prove its worth as the key actor defending Iran and its Islamic system.
Meanwhile, Tehran is not as isolated as the Trump administration believes. It has the support of both Russia and China. And Iran’s geographical location has worked to its advantage, enabling it to access markets by road through its neighbors and via the Caspian Sea to the north.
The US and Israel still have the advantage when it comes to military power and they can inflict heavy damage on Iran. But Tehran’s strategic gains have placed it in a stronger bargaining position in the peacemaking process.
No matter the level of US military and economic pressure, Tehran is unlikely to succumb to US and Israeli demands to dismantle its nuclear program or relinquish control over the Strait of Hormuz.
The regime was designed to be resilient. It has built a system based on defiance, resistance and pragmatic decision making when faced with serious threats from both inside and outside Iran.
As such, it has the patience and endurance to outlast Trump – and, for that matter, Netanyahu.
Echoes of 1979
The regime also has a history of outlasting the United States.
For instance, there are some parallels that can be drawn between the way the Islamic Republic founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini dealt with the hostage crisis of 1979-81, when a militant group of his supporters ransacked the US embassy and took 66 Americans hostage, and the manner in which his successors are now managing negotiations with the US.
Khomeini let that episode drag on for 444 days, both to consolidate his power and to humiliate the US for having backed the pro-Western monarchy of his predecessor, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.
His approach played a key role in then-President Jimmy Carter’s defeat by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 US presidential election. The regime released the remaining 52 hostages just minutes after Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981.
The current standoff with Iran is only 100 days old, and it appears the regime is now prepared to use a similar strategy to punish Trump and Netanyahu for attacking Iran.
Iran’s leaders are seemingly determined to turn the tables on their adversaries and humiliate them. Whether they succeed will depend on what Trump does next – and what he’s willing to compromise on to bring Iran to the table for a lasting, mutually acceptable agreement.
Amin Saikal is emeritus professor of Middle Eastern studies at Australian National University, the University of Western Australia and Victoria University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
