The escalation of US-Iran tensions raises the threat of another war in the Persian Gulf. Since the US has unilaterally withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal, Washington has been putting pressure on Tehran through various measures. First, it re-imposed economic sanctions and then decided to increase its military presence in the region by sending additional troops to counter the Islamic Republic. Latest in this line, on Thursday, President Trump approved military strikes on Iran in reprisal for downing an American drone by the Iranian forces. Though White House has pulled its decision back, the trouble in the region is on with the potential to escalate into a full-scale regional war.
For Washington, the Islamic Republic of Iran was always a villain and a member of ‘axis of evil.’ The nature of government in Tehran, its ‘Islamic’ characteristics and its ambition to build nuclear weapons have been the two significant concerns of the US foreign policy. The world has seen several tensions, including threats of regional conflicts over these issues time and again. However, the signing of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) popularly known as Iran Nuclear deal in 2015, under the statesmanship of the then US President Barak Obama had slightly eased the tension between the two. Iran’s strict compliance with the JCPOA and the subsequent lifting of economic sanctions by the US has taken the relationship further. However, Obama’s successor in the White House, Donald Trump overturned the situation by revoking the nuclear deal and re-imposing a fresh set of stringent sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
Interestingly, the US, especially President Trump, was equally critical of North Korea and its leader Kim Jong-Un, vis-à-vis his nuclear weapon programme. The war of words between the two had heightened the tension in the Korean Peninsula when they warned each other of using atomic weapons. However, the pressures diffused abruptly when Trump and Kim showed their willingness to solve the issue diplomatically. In a first-ever meeting between the leaders of North Korea and the US, in June 2018, in Singapore, Trump and Kim agreed to ease the tensions through new peaceful relations. In February 2019, the leaders of the two countries met at Hanoi; however, no agreements concluded.
What one can infer from both these cases, it is the nuclear weapons that matter when the US decides to strike its enemies militarily. The increasing US military pressure on Iran and Trump’s softened approach towards North Korea testifies the argument of Kenneth Waltz that ‘why Iran should get the bomb.’ According to Waltz, ending the US-Iran nuclear standoff has three possible ways; first, diplomacy ‘coupled with serious sanctions that could convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.’ Second, ‘Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability.’ Third, Iran ‘publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon.’ He further added that the first and second ways are unlikely and its success is linked to some other elements as well. However, the third will bring more regional and international stability ‘by reducing imbalances in military power.’ Once the Islamic Republic crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply and the existing quandary will dissipate, ‘leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today,’ Waltz said.
The rationale behind a military strike against Iran is not to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons as Trump claims. What Trump and his hawkish colleagues looking for is a regime change, similar to Iraq and Libya. The US has been pursuing this for decades. Bringing economic sanctions back in is the first step to regime change. The US hopes that sanction will deepen the ‘popular discontent’ and the ‘regime will simply collapse’ or provoke the Islamic Republic to resume its nuclear weapons program, ‘which would give Washington an excuse to launch a preventive war.’ Iraq and Libya are cases in point in the recent history where Washington used the same techniques.
The regional stability in the Persian Gulf collapsed with the regime change in Iraq. The first vacuum produced by the war was in the regional balance of power. If Saddam had a bomb, the situation in the region would have been different today. This is evident in the case of North Korea. The US threats and warnings to Kim Jong-Un stopped once Washington realized that Kim already has nuclear weapons. Now for the US, it is not only hard to begin a war with an intention to change the regime in Pyongyang but to bargain for a better deal as well. Compared to Iran, North Korea constitutes a real military threat, to the US and its allies; Japan and South Korea. Pyongyang, according to reports, developed an ICBM that is capable to can reach US homeland.
The principal lesson that Iran is likely to draw from Trump’s decision to negotiate with North Korea while decided to build up military pressure on Iran is that ‘it is North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and delivery capabilities that have brought the US to the negotiating table.’ Hence for Iran, to avoid the fate of Iraq, the best way is to get a nuclear bomb. That will not only deter the US and Israel but will bring more stability in the region. The Islamic Republic without nuclear capability will always invite American threat, of intervention and regime change. The adverse outcomes of such developments both for the US and for the region will be far worse than Iraq, Libya and Syria. Thus, sooner Iran has the bomb; the region will be stable and better. The impending US war against Iran underlines this vexatious truth.
The author is Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
