The United States has no interest in resorting to the military solution to resolve the dispute with Iran over its nuclear program. The use of force in the Middle East revives memories of costly experiences. President Donald Trump himself does not believe that the military solution is viable, unless all other options to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear dream run out. Iran, in turn, says it has no such dream. However, despite its repeated denials, the nuclear file continues to return to the spotlight.
The lack of trust between the US and Iran is not unusual. Both countries have traded direct and indirect blows over the past decades, deepening this crisis of trust. The current Iran always views the US or “Great Satan” as the top danger. It is aware that the US is a major power that is capable of upending balances of power in most parts of the world. Meanwhile, the US views Iran as the main backer of terrorism in the Middle East and it has accused it of having a hand in every attempt to destabilize the region.
Trump’s return to the White House has enflamed the crisis with Iran. He is connected to two major events in Iran’s recent history: Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and the killing of Qassem Soleimani.
Trump has opened the door for negotiations with Iran, but with the constant reminder that it will never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, even if this ultimately means resorting to military force to prevent it from doing so.
The current nuclear crisis with Iran has entered a new phase in wake of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report that accuses Tehran of speeding up its rate of uranium enrichment. Trump’s repeated statement that Tehran will not be allowed to acquire nuclear arms is accompanied by repeated signs from him that an agreement is possible with it, and soon.
The US has no interest in sliding into a military confrontation with Iran. It also has no interest in Israel taking the reins in such a mission with unpredictable repercussions. In all likelihood, Iran, which has long avoided slipping into a direct confrontation with the US, will continue to walk the same path in avoiding such a costly clash.
Moreover, Iran today is in no shape to become embroiled in such a test of force. The recent changes in the Middle East have not at all been in Iran’s favor and they have denied it some of its most valuable cards. On this note, we have to wonder what Abbas Araghchi will feel when his plane approaches Beirut airport. Will he sense that Beirut has changed or that the region has changed, along with Iran’s position in it?
He knows that his mission these days is very difficult, if not impossible. The world is calling on Iran to reassure it, while he responds that it should reassure Iran instead.
Araghchi is aware of what happened to the Iranian train in recent months. Syria has hopped off and there is nothing that would lead anyone to believe that it would jump back on again. What changed in Syria was not just the name of its president, but an entire way in how it treats the Syrian people, its neighbors and the world.
Damascus ousted the “way of the resistance” that the Assad regime had long relied on. The US is no longer viewed as an enemy. Syria is now being desired and is in demand. Its advice and demands are also being heard.
Syria no longer hosts the officers of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as part of the plan Qassem Soleimani spent years in drawing up, especially after he successfully persuaded Putin’s Russia in saving the Assad regime from collapse. Syria no longer hosts the headquarters of Palestinian “resistance” organizations and offers its leaders safe havens. These groups are no longer welcome in Syria, while Lebanon’s Hezbollah is now viewed as an enemy.
Lebanon has also changed. The naming of presidents is no longer in the hands of Hezbollah commanders. The current president of the republic was elected after vowing to achieve state monopoly over arms. The same can be said of the current prime minister. The current rule in Lebanon is based on the full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1701. Any delay is full of dangers and risks wasting opportunities for reconstruction and reestablishing stability.
Araghchi knows that the current nuclear crisis erupted at a very difficult time. The changes in Syria are comparable to the changes that took place in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Another Iraq and another Syria. Iran has not been able to make up such losses. Iraq did not hop off the Iranian train in wake of the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation and its ensuing wars, but it managed to remain outside of the storm and avoid any adventures. The Houthi missiles are not enough compensation for Iran’s losses.
One must pause at the situation in Gaza. The catastrophe there has not bounds and there are no limits to Israel’s savagery. Hamas fought long and hard and paid hefty prices, but today, it has no other practical alternative than to seek shelter in Witkoff’s proposal.
Araghchi is aware of what happened to the Iranian train in wake of the Al-Aqsa operation. He knows that the countries of the region encourage building bridges with his own. Perhaps he even knows that accepting a lesser role for his country is much better than risking exposing it and its regime to a direct clash with the American military machine.
