Trump has threatened to withdraw from the Iran deal. What does this mean?
A serious escalation has occurred between the United States and Iran, which threatens to bring down all the progress previously achieved in the negotiations. US President Donald Trump has explicitly stated that he is no longer interested in a peaceful settlement, although he has given his negotiators a chance to settle their differences. The two countries are once again on the verge of a full-fledged conflict and the full range of problems it poses to the world. What the resumption of airstrikes in the Middle East means and how events will develop is in the Izvestia article.
How the situation has escalated
• The truce in the Strait of Hormuz, which began after the signing of the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran on June 17, broke down on July 6. Two ships were hit in the Strait of Hormuz, which is supposed to be open to the passage of commercial vessels. The next morning, another ship was attacked. Among others, a Saudi oil tanker and a Qatari gas carrier passing through the strait along the coast of Oman were hit. Iran has not claimed responsibility for the attacks.
• In response, the United States first announced the resumption of sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil, which were suspended in accordance with the memorandum, and then attacked targets in Iran. The attack also hit the port city of Bushir, where the nuclear power plant is located. Tehran's strikes on American military bases in Bahrain and Kuwait soon followed.
• The escalation occurred while the six-day funeral of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei, who died as a result of strikes by the United States and Israel on the first day of hostilities on February 28, was continuing in Iran. Before the start of the funeral, it was tacitly reported that all parties would refrain from hostilities, and after the funeral, they would hold talks in Doha to conclude a final agreement.
• Prior to the signing of the memorandum, Iran and the United States had already periodically violated the truce that the countries had agreed on back in April. Each time, such attacks did not lead to serious consequences and did not stop the negotiation process. However, this time the situation took a different turn. During the NATO summit in Ankara, US President Donald Trump sharply criticized the Iranian leadership and announced the termination of the truce. He noted that negotiations with his son-in-law Jared Kushner and special envoy Steven Witkoff will continue, but he does not believe in them.
How will events develop
• The fact that earlier, at the moment of escalation, Trump continued to claim progress in negotiations with Iran, and this time he personally ordered strikes and abruptly refused to return to diplomacy, speaks to potential changes in the situation in the Middle East. Since the signing of the memorandum, a fairly lasting peace has prevailed in the region, which made it possible to unblock the Strait of Hormuz and resume the supply of hydrocarbons through it. It is significant that oil prices have returned to pre-war levels, meaning the global economy believed in a return to the status quo and left the US-Iranian war in the past.
• The threat of a return to conflict is now increasing. Neither the United States nor Iran have taken visible steps to reduce their military presence, and therefore retain the ability to conduct military operations. During the period when the truce in the Strait of Hormuz was in effect, they had time to increase their weapons, regroup their troops, conduct reconnaissance and identify targets for new strikes. This makes it possible, at least, to continue the war in a sporadic, limited format, which lasted several weeks after the most active February-March phase. The resumption of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is also extremely likely.
• Even this nature of the conflict negates all previously reached agreements and returns to the period of uncertainty that both the participants themselves and outside observers were so eager to complete. In the coming days, topics such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, rising oil prices, the development of Iran's nuclear and missile programs, and local conflicts in the Middle East can be expected to come to the fore again.
• At the same time, the fact that the agreements concluded have been broken, and the last remnants of trust have been destroyed, threatens to strengthen the determination of both sides to resolve the contradictions militarily. This means that the United States and Iran will move from a sluggish exchange of blows to large-scale hostilities and a phase of regional war that will affect the entire Middle East. Tehran will call on proxy allies, and the United States will finally fully engage the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, which, after the failure of diplomacy, will have no choice but to openly engage in the conflict.
• The expansion of the conflict will allow both sides to accuse each other of aggressive intentions and inability to comply with agreements, and this, in turn, will serve as an excuse for escalation. This will change the political background, which previously did not favor the United States and especially Israel. In the eyes of the rest of the world, they were troublemakers who upset the delicate balance in the Middle East for the sake of an adventurous attempt to change the regime in Iran. But now they may have a chance to present themselves as defenders of agreements that have become embroiled in a new round of conflict. Such a prospect will strengthen confidence that there is no alternative to a military solution to the conflict.
• A de-escalation scenario is also possible, but it is unlikely that it should be expected in the coming days. Trump still left his negotiators with a small chance that they would be able to reverse the current situation and achieve compliance with the terms of the agreements in the face of the threat of renewed war. Previous attempts to stop the conflict have shown that Washington is still ready to make concessions and reduce the degree of tension if it sees reciprocal steps towards it. The current escalation began with the shelling of three ships, which, against the background of previous events, does not seem to be an indispensable reason to restart the military machine of the two countries. However, now the United States, against the background of falling mutual trust, may be tougher in demanding that the Islamic Republic abandon enriched uranium, and it is difficult to predict how Iran will react to this.
Was there a chance to get out of the crisis
• The mechanism that the United States and Iran chose in an attempt to stop the conflict did not guarantee a positive outcome from the very beginning. The parties assumed that a two-month truce would be enough for them to build a working relationship and get rid of all the contradictions that had existed for decades. Not only did they set themselves an ambitious task, but the foundation built for it could collapse at any moment due to violations of any of the points of the signed memorandum.
• From the very beginning, many of these conditions looked like excessive concessions, which each side categorically refused to make until recently. Now it becomes obvious that the parties did not intend to strictly observe their obligations, and therefore the negotiation process loses its meaning, as it turns into walking in a circle. The only benefit of it was to gain time and try to mitigate the negative effects that each side had experienced during the crisis.
• The opening of the Strait of Hormuz has helped reduce tensions in the oil market, dramatically increase supply and replenish stocks, and send a positive signal to investors that the economy has moved back from the brink. This is what the Trump administration needed so badly to improve its image both inside and outside the country. Iran also needed a break to regroup its power structures, hold Khamenei's funeral, which is important for national unity, rethink what happened and develop a further action plan.
• Now that the immediate benefits of the truce have been obtained, and the hope of concluding a full-fledged agreement remains low, the United States and Iran are tempted to raise the stakes and test each other's willingness to continue playing by the same rules that they wanted to impose on the other side. Either they will return to the previous fragile format in an attempt to get out of the crisis, or through new clashes they will seek to weaken the rival's position in order to create a different negotiating framework.
What does this mean?
The differences between the United States and Iran are too deep to be resolved at this stage. Both sides demonstrate open hostility towards each other and dissatisfaction with the agreements reached. In this regard, they still cannot achieve a clear reconciliation based on diplomatic efforts. The renewed mutual strikes have given rise to three possible scenarios for the development of the situation, the most likely of which is a sluggish conflict with the resumption of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the involvement — perhaps more active than in the spring — of the Gulf monarchies. And the rest of the world will have to keep in mind the option in which all the negative consequences caused by the war will come back.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
