EA on WION: How Iran Maneuvered Trump Into Tweeting “Ceasefire”
EA-Byline Times Podcast: What’s Next After Trump’s Bombing of Iran?
EA-Times Radio VideoCast: Trump Joins Israel’s War on Iran
After the US joined Israel’s war with strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, but before Donald Trump’s proclamation of a “ceasefire” on Monday night, I answered questions from Jonathan Este of The Conversation about the possible course of events:
How might this now escalate?
Iran’s leadership have no good military options, just as they have had limited capabilities in the days since Israel launched its missile strikes and targeted assassinations across the country.
In theory, they could target US forces, with up to 40,000 in the region within range of missiles and drones. Iran-backed militias in Iraq could also attack US personnel on bases in the country.
But the Biden Administration showed that it would hit back hard. When the militias in Iraq and the Assad regime’s Syria killed troops and a contractor, Washington pummeled the groups with airstrikes. Iran’s Quds Force, responsible for operations outside the Islamic Republic, told the militias to stop.
The Iranians could target the US fleet in the Persian Gulf, and even threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz. But given that 20% of the world’s oil goes through the waterway, those operations would incur the wrath not only of Washington but of other countries —- and the Gulf States, whose support Tehran desperately wants and needs, would be quite upset.
Similarly, Iran’s allies in Yemen, Ansar Allah (the Houthis), could renew their attacks on Red Sea shipping. They could fire drones and missiles, reprising their assault on Saudi oil facilities between 2019 and 2022. But the political and military cost of that retaliation would be high.
Iranian hybrid attacks, through cyber-warfare and assassination plots, are also a possibility. However, the US and other states have clamped down on those activities in recent years, making their achievement of results more difficult.
So while Iran continues to launch a dwindling stock of missiles at Israel, I think that its strategy beyond that is political. Play the victim and try to encourage other states, including the Gulf countries and the Europeans, to distance themselves from the Trump Administration.
What does this tell us about the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu?
Benjamin Netanyahu played Trump to ensure the success of Israel’s war. Simple as that.
It was only on February 4 that Trump came close to humiliating the Israeli Prime Minister. Netanyahu had come to Washington to ask for the Administration’s support for strikes on Iran as well as a renewed open-ended war on Gaza.
But as Bibi sat uncomfortably in the White House press briefing, Trump declared that the US was going to open negotiations with Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program.
What could the Netanyahu Government do? Inform the Trump Administration in mid-May that it was going ahead with the strikes. There was some maneuvering over the next three weeks, as the US and Iran went through five sets of talks.
But on June 8, Trump met his national security advisors at Camp David in Maryland, and Israel succeeded in its ploy. Five days later, they launched their devastating attacks, and the sixth set of US-Iran talks in Oman was scuttled.
Now Trump, with the Orwellian cry “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!”, has blown up those negotiations for the foreseeable future.
Where are Russia and China in all this?
Watching and calculating.
On Sunday, Beijing condemned “a reckless escalation and a flagrant violation of international law”. However, its response will largely be rhetorical, avoiding any military or even political entanglement.
If the US deepens its involvement in Iran’s war, including with any further strikes, China will step up the rhetoric while seeking advantage from the instability. It will play the responsible power, pursuing peace and progress, in contrast to a destructive and unreliable Trump Administration.
Russia is in a trickier position because of its 40-month full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which has no end in sight. Iran has been an essential part of the military campaign, providing thousands of drones for Moscow’s daily attacks on military and civilian sites.
As recently as April, the two countries signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement, pledging closer cooperation in trade, defence, energy, and regional infrastructure projects. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araqchi flew to Moscow on Monday for “serious consultations” with Russian “friends”, including Vladimir Putin.
While Iran’s supply to Russia may continue, any tactical discussions with Tehran are now hindered by Israel’s killings of most senior commanders — the Israelis claim 21 of 22 have been eliminated — and political officials.
So Russia’s scope for intervention could be limited. Just before the US attacks, Putin said he might mediate between Israel and Iran. Donald Trump immediately slapped him down.
And the Kremlin will not want to commit military resources to what might be a prolonged conflict, since it is already stretched — maybe overstretched — both on the battlefield and on the economic front over Putin’s Ukraine invasion.
What will the Arab world be thinking?
Perhaps the most important reaction to the strikes is coming from the Gulf States, in particularly Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.
Only a few weeks ago they were giving Trump shiny baubles on his tour so they could reap benefits from military hardware and economic investments and open up possibilities with American hi-tech, IT, and artificial intelligence.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also rivals of Tehran for influence across the Middle East. But the Gulf States are rattled by what might be an expanding, destructive conflict with the prospect of a power vacuum in Tehran. For months, they have maneuvered against that instability in discussions with the Islamic Republic as well as with Washington.
With its open-ended war in Gaza, Israel has already shattered the economic and political prospects of “normalization”. Now the Gulf States are watching their own populations being rattled by the Israel-US war on a nearby state, and worrying how far Israel and Iran will carry out their confrontation across the Middle East.
So on Sunday there was a hint that they might come off the fence between flattering Trump and pushing back Washington. Without naming the US, Saudi Arabia “condemned and denounced” the violation of Iran’s sovereignty. Qatar said the US strikes would have “catastrophic repercussions”. The UAE warned all parties to avoid those “serious” repercussions, and Oman went farther by criticizing the breaking of international law.
Trump has ignored advice from his own director of intelligence. Who is helping him game out this situation?
That’s a great question with no clear answer.
It is clear that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has been pushed to the margins because she dared to publicize the assessment of US intelligence agencies that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
But with Cabinet members all proclaiming that this was Donald Trump’s “brilliant” plan, it is hard to see who led in pushing him away from negotiations and into the strikes.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is little more than a hyperactive cheerleader. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is balancing between promotion of the strikes and urging Iran to return to negotiations.
CIA Director John Radcliffe, in contrast to Gabbard, has probably been significant in a presentation of intelligence that emphasizes Iran’s threat. Vice President J.D. Vance was central last week in efforts to persuade Republican legislators to back the strikes, amid the split in the Trumpist bloc over attacks. The Pentagon appears to have given reassurances that the US “bunker buster” bombs and Tomahawk missiles would be effective in degrading Iran’s nuclear program.
In the end, this comes back to the Netanyahu Government. They gave Trump the “game” in which his supposed Deal of the Century could follow Israeli attacks bringing Iran to its knees and to the tables, not for negotiations but for surrender.
And Trump eagerly took this up as his “victory”.
“I’d say, despite the initial tactical defeat, Iran has emerged on top.”
No point in debating with an IDIOT.
The outcome of the “12-day war”:
1. The Islamic Republic has survived in-tact despite the killings of top commanders and scientists.
2. The Iranian economy has been largely unaffected.
3. The Iranian people have rallied round both the flag and the leadership.
4. Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal remains.
5. The nuclear program remains in place despite serious damage to facilities.
6. Israel’s Mossad networks in Iran have been exposed.
7. Israel’s economy has take a huge hit requiring deep spending cuts and divestment.
8. Israel has expended years’ supplies of interceptors leaving it vulnerable.
9. Iran got to test its most advanced and deadly weapons (like the Sejjil-2).
I’d say, despite the initial tactical defeat, Iran has emerged on top.