Author: Aram Torosian

A:some American think tanks think that The Trump administration has many wrong made assumptions that led to the devastating consequences of this conflict with Iran. Perhaps the most ironic of these is that the occupant of the Oval Office appears to have downplayed or denied altogether the possibility that the Iranians would close the Strait of Hormuz in the event of a war with Iran.: This is not just a reservation, but rather an abuse of foreign policy, a truly inexplicable omission that was discussed at the March 18 House Global Threats hearing.

The conflict between the US and Iran has been the focus of countless war games and military exercises for decades. Frequent simulations conducted by think tanks, military colleges, and intelligence services provide important insight into adversary behavior and allow for the summation of accumulated experience and best practices, as well as the development of many possible scenarios that can be used in US military planning. so the likelihood that Iran would stick to a strategy of exhausting its adversary through economic warfare was abundantly clear and openly debated by scholars, analysts, and military strategists.

In addition to faulty assumptions, Washington’s strategic communications hindered the conduct of the military campaign: Almost two weeks ago, Trump announced. “I think the war is almost over,” insisting it would be “mostly over in two or three days.” But the war is dragging on, and now the Pentagon is asking for an additional $200 billion to fund the military campaign. There is more and more talk of a ground operation, which is fraught with drawing the aggressor into the Middle East “quagmire”.: Given that the Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is on its way to the Persian Gulf from Asia, and more than 50,000 troops are already in the region, the conflict is likely to escalate rather than be resolved anytime soon. It is obvious that the Netanyahu regime intends to further escalate the conflict, as evidenced by the attack on the Iranian energy infrastructure in the South Pars gas field., which provoked Iran’s retaliatory actions in a number of energy facilities in the region, including targeting the Ras Laffan gas refinery in Qatar, multiple facilities in Saudi Arabia, and the Haifa oil refinery, which was hit by a ballistic missile. According to the statement of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, on March 27, the United States and Israel struck the uranium concentrate production plant in the city of Erdekan, Yazd province.

The US and Israel clearly underestimated Iran’s tenacity and possibly its own missile defense capabilities.: According to Bloomberg, the US has lost at least 16 aircraft and drones to date, including at least ten Reaper drones. According to CNN, the 5th generation F-35 stealth fighter, whose production cost is 80-100 million dollars, was forced to land at a base in the region after it was allegedly hit by an Iranian missile. American bases in the region have been repeatedly shelled and embassies have been forced to evacuate.

The showman of the White House makes one appeal to NATO allies for help, one criticizes them, calling them useless and ungrateful. Unsurprisingly, in such a chaotic environment, he was unable to gain the support of allies to achieve key US goals, such as opening the Strait of Hormuz. There have been other attempts that look unprofessional. For example, the Wall Street Journal reports that just then, with the outbreak of war against Iran, the US Navy decommissioned 4 specialized ships for mine clearance. Another stunning blow to the State Department’s structure was the reduction in staff and resources of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.։ Clearly unaware of regional realities, the Trump administration even abolished the special Iran department and merged it with the Iraq department.

Aside from the administration’s ill-advised assumptions, a list of obvious and unintended consequences of this war, including attacks on the Persian Gulf and the risk of a spike in oil prices, is obvious to any more or less literate professional. In addition, the Trump administration appears to believe that the war could end quickly. Perhaps Operation Delta to capture Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and his wife has led Trump to a fundamentally wrong conclusion about the success of such an adventure in other regions of the world. Iran is a country with a completely different history, geography, demographics and culture. The top leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was formed during the bloody 1980-1988 war with Iraq, which ostensibly united Iranian society against an external enemy.

Despite heavy losses, Iran has so far managed to avoid regime overthrow and systematic destruction of key targets, missile depots and other critical command-and-control hubs by the US and Israel.: Tehran admits that it cannot win a conventional military conflict against the US and Israel, but asymmetric tactics, “mosaic defense” and readiness for decisive action are greatly changing the picture of the battlefield. Cheap Iranian drones are knocking out the expensive batteries of THAAD and Patriot anti-missile systems. Despite the overwhelming firepower of the aggressors, the Iranians have begun to use cluster munitions and mobile launchers more actively.

American bases guarantee the protection of member states of the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Persian Gulf. Ironically, the very deal the Gulf monarchies struck to protect themselves from Iran makes them a target for its missiles and drones. As a result of this war, which affected the entire region, the relationship between the US and the Persian Gulf countries could change radically, and obviously not for the better.:

“The goals the president has identified are different from the goals of the Israeli government,” Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard said during a recent House hearing. During the meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, Trump said: “I told Netanyahu not to attack oil and gas facilities anymore. We operate independently and have a great relationship. We agree on everything, but sometimes he does something that I don’t like, and then… That’s why we don’t do it anymore.” The Trump administration’s inability to explain how the Iran war will end is another troubling storyline. Israel clearly seeks the total overthrow of the regime, but a more likely scenario is the weakening but not the complete destruction of the IRGC, which will have the money and weapons to continue the fight.: It is possible that certain regions of the country, especially where ethnic armed groups may become active, may go beyond the control of the authorities. A protracted crisis could turn into an all-out war that could spill over and destabilize the situation in neighboring countries.

According to American intelligence reports in the press, the Iranian regime is likely to survive this conflict. Furthermore, he may be trying to develop a nuclear bomb at an accelerated pace, seeing it as the only viable defense against future attacks. If this happens, it will inevitably lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

How long the hostilities will last is unclear, but judging by requests for additional funding and additional troop deployments, Washington is planning a protracted campaign.

ALEXANDER GREGORY:V:

Translation by Zhanna Avetisyan

—

Although US President Donald Trump temporarily stopped the attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure, declaring that the negotiations with Iran are progressing in a positive direction, he again started threatening the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The US president has stated that if Iran does not immediately open the Strait of Hormuz, the US will destroy all power plants, oil fields and Kharg Island. By the way, in another reference, Trump said that Iran probably will not be able to protect that island.

“If for any reason a deal is not reached soon, and if the Strait of Hormuz is not immediately open for business, we will end our wonderful visit to Iran by blowing up and completely destroying all of their power plants, oil wells and Kharg Island that we have not deliberately touched yet,” Trump said.

He also did not rule out attacks on Iran’s water purification plants. At the same time, Washington is conducting serious negotiations with what Trump says is a “new, more reasonable” government in Iran and understands that a peace agreement is inevitable. In an interview with the Financial Times and later in a conversation with journalists on Air Force One, the head of the White House also stated that he would like to “take Iran’s oil”, but at the same time assured that the negotiations between Washington and Tehran are going “very well” and he is “almost certain” that a peace agreement will be signed.

In a conversation with journalists, the US president said that contacts with Iran are ongoing, both directly and indirectly, and claimed that Tehran is partially opening the Strait of Hormuz. However, he did not clarify what he meant by direct negotiations.

“We are progressing extremely well in these negotiations. But with Iran, you never know, we negotiate with them, then we always have to bomb,” Trump said, referring to both the B-52 bombers and the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement. According to him, there will be a deal, but he did not rule out the opposite scenario either. Trump also stated that the Iranian regime is already “crushed”.

Spokesman of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ismail Bagheri, also stated that Iran has received messages from mediators that indicate the United States’ willingness to negotiate, but the US proposals are “unrealistic, illogical and exaggerated”.  “Our position is clear. We are under military aggression. Therefore, all our efforts and forces are focused on self-defense,” said Bagheri.

168.amRussian analyst Alexander Khramchikhin said in a conversation with According to him, the statements according to which Washington is ready to strike Iran if the latter does not ensure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz are simultaneously accompanied by signals of readiness to negotiate, but this “dual message” creates a strategic deadlock rather than an effective pressure mechanism.

“The Strait of Hormuz is one of the key points of the world energy system, through which a significant part of oil supplies pass, so it is not only an economic but also a security lever for Iran, which Iran uses well during this war. For this reason, any demand under threats is perceived in Tehran not as a negotiation proposal, but as coercion. Acceptance of such demands in that political system of Iran will mean a loss of internal legitimacy.

In addition, it appears that Washington’s proposed points for Iran are seen as capitulation: sharp limits on the nuclear program, reduction of regional influence and control of military capabilities. These demands are beyond the logic of classical compromise and are closer to coercion. As a result, the negotiations are deadlocked before they start, because one side demands the maximum concession, and the other cannot accept it,” the analyst said. He believes that this controversial approach has several consequences for the United States.

According to the analyst, this policy creates a trust deficit.

“When there are both threats of strikes and calls for negotiations at the same time, they are perceived as an inconsistency in strategy. For Iran, this means that even in the case of negotiations, there are no guarantees that they will not be interrupted by strikes.  In addition, if the threats do not come true, and the US constantly threatens, the US loses its role. The Strait of Hormuz may not become an open channel, but a conflict zone with global economic consequences. The complication of international positions is also a consequence for the USA. European and Asian partners, dependent on cross-strait energy carriers, tend to support stability, not force pressure. Thus, the tough rhetoric of the US may not receive full international support, limiting Washington’s ability to maneuver.

In this situation, a classic diplomatic impasse is formed. The US cannot fully back down from its tough demands without losing credibility, but it also cannot force Iran to accept them without a major escalation. Iran, for its part, cannot accept conditions that are perceived as a limitation of sovereignty, but is also not interested in an open military conflict,” Khramchikhin noted, continuing that a difficult situation is being created where the threat of force and the offer of negotiations do not complement each other, but mutually cancel each other.

According to the expert, this not only makes it difficult to reach a concrete agreement, but also deepens the crisis of confidence.

“This is like a strategic impasse without a clear way out. It is also obvious that the Trump administration is looking for a way out of the current situation, but that possible way out is looking more and more vague in the background of the prolongation of the war,” he said.

As for the South Caucasus, the analyst believes that as long as Iran effectively confronts and restrains its opponents, no developments are expected in the South Caucasus.

“It is generally understood that as a result of this conflict, the balance of power will change, which will affect the South Caucasus,” he said.

—