"There will be no regime change in Iran"
The administration of Donald Trump in the current conflict with Iran seeks primarily to limit Tehran's nuclear program and reduce its military potential, said Thomas Graham, a former adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush. According to him, the White House is not yet looking for a diplomatic solution and intends to rely on a military scenario for several more weeks. Graham is convinced that even proven US involvement in the attack on the school in the Iranian Minaba will not lead to Trump's impeachment and will not change Washington's course. At the same time, the impact of the war with Iran on Ukraine's support in the near future will remain limited. What scenarios for the development of this campaign are being discussed in Washington and what they can lead to, in an exclusive interview with Thomas Graham to Izvestia.
"The main thing is to limit Iran's nuclear program and reduce its military power"
— The operation against Iran has been going on for almost two weeks. In your opinion, what is Washington's real goal in the current circumstances — limiting the nuclear program, strategically weakening the country, or regime change?
— At this stage, it is difficult to give an unambiguous answer, especially since the president himself explains the goals of this campaign in different ways. I would say that, first of all, we are talking about limiting Iran's capabilities, primarily in the nuclear sphere, and reducing its military power. There is certainly a desire for regime change, and Washington is talking about it, but it is unclear how this could be implemented and with what resources.
As far as I know, none of the administration representatives has explained how regime change could happen in practice. Therefore, I would say that the main thing now is to limit Iran's nuclear program and reduce its military potential.
— Donald Trump demanded "unconditional surrender" from Iran. How seriously should this statement be taken?
— There is an element of factual ambiguity here. No one has really explained what exactly the White House means by Iran's "complete surrender." The president himself did not explain this, so it is difficult to say exactly what he means and how it could be implemented. I would not take this formula as a clearly defined political plan.
In general, Trump often talks about the goals and the course of the conflict in different ways. This is a typical approach for him — the desire to remain unpredictable so that no one knows exactly what he is going to do. He considers unpredictability as one of his strengths. Therefore, I would treat such statements with caution: the conflict will obviously continue for some time, and only in a few weeks it will become clear what results these actions will lead to.
— Is there a diplomatic solution to the conflict that could suit Washington and Tehran?
— Washington is not currently looking for a diplomatic way out of this situation. The administration is determined to continue using force for several more weeks. After that, the White House is supposed to look at how the situation has changed, and then they will decide what to do next.
It is too early and premature to talk about a diplomatic settlement of this conflict. We are talking about completing the current phase of the military operation, evaluating its results, and then deciding whether some kind of diplomacy is required. But at this stage, the administration rather rules out such an option.
— In general, are there any signals today that Washington has "moderated its appetites" towards Iran and is no longer counting on regime change?
— Yes, I think Washington understands that there will be no regime change in Iran, that it is necessary to somehow establish relations with elements of this old regime. The main task now is to find specific people to work with in the future. This is most likely not the current leadership, but other figures or a circle of people who may not be religious.
— The telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump attracted a lot of attention. How do you assess Moscow's possible role in the Iranian settlement?
— It seems to me that he called primarily to inform Putin about what is happening in Iran. I do not rule out that the issue of what Russia and the United States could do together after the end of this phase of the conflict in order to stabilize the situation inside Iran and in the region as a whole was discussed.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump
— Can Moscow mediate between Washington and Tehran in this situation?
— I don't think she will be a mediator. But the fact is that Moscow has quite close ties with elements of the ruling regime in Iran, and, in my opinion, it can to some extent influence what is happening inside the country. It seems to me that Washington is not looking for a mediator, but could consider Russia as a partner with whom, under certain conditions, it would be possible to work together with elements of the Iranian regime.
"The security architecture is changing quite quickly"
— After the start of the operation against Iran, many started talking about the formation of a new security architecture in the Middle East. Can we say that this conflict has already triggered such a process?
— In fact, this process did not begin now, but at least two or three years ago, after the attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Since then, we have seen a very serious change in the security architecture in the Middle East: the weakening of Hamas, other so-called proxies of Iran, and the weakening of Iran itself.
And the security architecture is changing quite quickly. The conflict with Iran is not the final stage of this transformation, but a part of it. In my opinion, this process will continue for some time, and only later will it become clear exactly what the balance in the region will be.
— How do the traditional partners of the United States in the Persian Gulf react to what is happening? Can we expect that their trust in Washington will be undermined for a long time?
— Now, of course, there is discontent, and this is natural: no one is happy about the war in the neighboring region, which carries serious risks. But a lot will depend on the end result. If Iran turns out to be seriously weakened in the end, it will be a huge plus for the Gulf states. In this case, the current discontent can be perceived as a temporary reaction to the acute phase of the crisis.
Therefore, I would say that it is premature to talk about a long-term undermining of relations. The final assessment of this operation is a matter of time and how it will end.
— Iran has announced the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. How serious could this have for the global oil and gas logistics markets? Can we say that rising energy prices are already becoming a political problem for the United States?
— The key question here is how long it will last. We are already seeing a surge in oil prices, and this is natural. But the importance of closing the strait decreases over time: Saudi Arabia has the opportunity to pump oil towards the Red Sea and further through the Suez Canal to Europe and Asia, the United Arab Emirates has an oil pipeline that bypasses Hormuz.
Now it seems that this is of great importance and has a very strong effect on prices. But a week later, the situation may look different. If the blockade is lifted quickly, the effect will be limited and short-term. If it lasts for a month, two, six months, the consequences will be completely different. It is premature to say that this situation will inevitably lead to a major global crisis: it all depends on how long it will last and what decisions the key actors will make.
Gasoline prices are certainly important for American domestic politics, but their dynamics again depend on the duration of the conflict and how quickly the situation can be stabilized. I would not draw far-reaching conclusions now: we need to wait for how events will develop in the coming weeks.
After the start of the military campaign against Iran on February 28, Brent oil prices rose sharply: from pre—war levels of about $70 per barrel to almost $120 on March 9-10, this is the maximum since the beginning of the crisis. The very next day after Donald Trump's statements about a possible imminent de-escalation and reports about the readiness of the countries of the International Energy Community to consider a record release of strategic reserves, prices fell back to $87-92 per barrel, remaining, however, noticeably higher than the values before the conflict began.
"Trump needs some kind of victory"
— If the operation against Iran drags on, how can this affect Trump's positions inside the United States and his ratings?
— It all depends on the results. If in the end we see a noticeable limitation of Iran's capabilities, a weakening of its proxy in the Middle East, more stable relations between key US partners in the region and a generally more positive security architecture, then this will be a big plus for Trump himself and will have a positive impact on his rating.
If the conflict continues without an obvious result and at some point Trump will have to send American ground troops to Iran, this is a completely different scenario that could seriously damage his position. In this sense, Trump needs some kind of victory. Let's see if he can present the results of the operation that way.
War never goes the way it was supposed to before it started. It would be desirable for everything to end in the near future, but in principle, if necessary, the United States can lead such a conflict for quite a long time. It all depends on how the situation develops — in the region itself, around it, and inside the United States.
— The attack on the school in the Iranian Minab is being actively discussed in the world. Could this story become the basis for impeachment or seriously change Washington's political course?
— There will be no impeachment because the Democrats do not control the House of Representatives. It's hard to imagine Republicans initiating the impeachment of their own president.
The investigation, of course, will continue. Let's see what conclusions it leads to. If it turns out that the strike was indeed the result of a US operation, it will provoke strong resistance from Democrats and, possibly, some other political leaders.
Iran is already using these events against the United States and will continue to do so. But, in my opinion, whatever the specific conclusions of the investigation, they will not change Washington's overall course in this conflict. It will continue despite the results of the investigation.
The attack on the girls' school in the city of Minab was carried out on February 28: according to the Iranian authorities and human rights organizations, about 170 people were killed, most of them schoolgirls. From the very first hours, Tehran blames the United States and Israel. The New York Times, citing an analysis of the rocket wreckage and satellite images, reported that the munition used was consistent with an American cruise missile. Washington officially refers to the incompleteness of the investigation.
"Sanctions against Russia will remain"
— Discussions are currently underway about how the war with Iran will affect Ukraine's support. Can we expect a significant weakening of supplies to Kiev in the coming months?
— I don't think so. Support will continue. So far, the United States and its allies have the ability to continue supplying the necessary weapons to Ukraine. I do not think that in the near future, what is happening in the Middle East will significantly weaken the combat capability of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Sanctions against Russia will remain, arms supplies will continue, and Ukraine will continue to fight. At least in the next month or two, maybe three, the impact of the Middle East conflict on the situation in Ukraine will be limited.
— Will the American military-industrial complex be able to cope with the two—way burden of supporting Ukraine and at the same time conducting intensive military operations in the Middle East?
— I think that in general he will be able to cope, although there are really a lot of questions here. We do not know in detail what kind of weapons stocks the United States has, this is classified information. We do not know how quickly the military-industrial complex is able to increase production of certain systems. These issues are being actively discussed in the administration, the Pentagon and other structures.
The events in the Middle East really make it difficult to organize meetings and somewhat delay the negotiation process. But as far as I understand, both Kiev and Moscow have an interest in resolving this conflict as soon as possible.
The meeting will take place in the relatively near future anyway — if not next week, then in the middle of the month. There is a desire to continue negotiations and find a solution that would end the war.
The trilateral meeting on Ukraine was postponed due to the conflict in the Middle East. It was originally planned from March 5 to March 8. According to US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, the next round may take place from March 16 to 22.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
