The U.S. and Iran have entered a conflict neither ostensibly wants but both seemed unable to avoid. The long-standing rivals ought to pause and think carefully about where their true interests lie.
After weeks of buildup, two U.S. carrier groups and squadrons of advanced fighters and bombers have now launched massive air and missile strikes against the Islamic Republic. In theory, the two sides are negotiating a deal to address U.S. demands, which presumably were conveyed during recent talks in Geneva. But a military deployment this large carries a momentum all its own. The president had warned he may have ordered a more narrowly targeted strike while negotiations were ongoing to demonstrate his seriousness. As Iran refused to meet U.S. red lines, he apparently faced immense pressure to launch a more wide-ranging attack to maintain U.S. credibility.
Yet the White House may be reaching the limits of its gunboat diplomacy. At this point, a limited initial strike seems to have convinced the regime that it needs to hit back hard to restore deterrence than to compromise. A broader campaign could degrade what remains of Iran’s nuclear facilities and the infrastructure to make and launch ballistic missiles, and perhaps even eliminate top regime figures. But there’s little evidence airstrikes alone would topple the government, or that whatever came next would be better. Iranian retaliation would inevitably impose costs on U.S. forces and allies in the region, especially Israel. And, given time, an even more paranoid and aggressive regime would rebuild its arsenal.
If Iran continues to insist that its ballistic missiles and support for proxy groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis can only be discussed with its Arab neighbors, it should be reminded that nonnuclear sanctions won’t be lifted until those concerns are resolved. The regime will need to show greater flexibility if it’s to have any hope of reviving a faltering economy, the spark for widespread protests around the new year.
Whether out of pride, ideological zeal or an instinct to haggle for even the tiniest advantage, Iranian leaders will be tempted to stall — to drag out negotiations, fob off the U.S. with flashy promises and try to trip up their American counterparts in highly technical details.
Regardless, they should consider the costs of repeating this familiar pattern. Although Iran can cause pain to the U.S. and Israel, it will pay the highest price if hostilities escalate. At best, it would emerge badly weakened and isolated, and even more vulnerable to future strikes. If the regime survives, officials will have to explain to an angry populace why they chose to fight for the right to pour billions into a domestic enrichment program that produces no nuclear power and into Arab proxies that were easily crushed by Israel instead of investing in their roughly 90 million citizens.
Before openly slaughtering thousands of protesters last month, Iran’s leaders had rejected chance after chance to improve the lives of their own people. If they do so again, they’ll have themselves to blame for the consequences.
