The price of peace with Iran

A US/Iran “peace” deal on paper might bring the war to an end but what will it mean for the future of the Middle East, America’s standing in the region and the security of Israel? Even as President Trump’s negotiators and special mediators (Pakistan’s army chief and prime minister), were trying to finalise the wording of the memorandum of understanding laying down the principles of a peace settlement, the idea of a grand-design strategy was already under discussion. A contained or, better still, conciliatory regime in Tehran could make the difference between a future of constant warfare and a region blessed with prosperity and improving relations. At this stage, after a bitter war which has brought death and destruction to more than half a dozen countries in the Gulf region, it might seem overly optimistic to imagine that a tentative deal between Washington and Tehran might lead to a period of genuine stability, even possibly an element of trust between longstanding enemies. It looks out of the question at present with so much rivalry and hatred and enduring ideological differences. However, the Trump administration is intent on expanding the Abraham Accords, the deal that saw the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain sign an agreement to normalise diplomatic relations with Israel ion September 15, 2020, during Trump’s first term. With Israel’s military attacks against Hamas in Gaza and against Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Tel Aviv government's refusal to countenance an independent Palestinian state, any further moves to bring countries such as Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords family had to be abandoned. The US/Israel war on Iran, even though supported by Gulf allies fearful of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, further postponed discussions with Washington over its grand-design concept for the Middle East. First, however, depending on the effectiveness and viability of a peace deal with Iran, the US will need to make key military decisions about its presence in the region over the next few years. It has become an axiom in western diplomatic circles that Iran can never be trusted to act in good faith. As a consequence, the US will have to retain a permanent aircraft carrier strike group in the region and preserve the 50,000 troop levels currently spread out in a number of Gulf nations. For the foreseeable future, while the negotiations continue to find a satisfactory nuclear deal with Tehran, it will be imperative to have all the military assets at a high state of readiness to impress on Tehran the need to reach a long-term agreement on the country’s uranium-enrichment programme. There are currently around 4,400 marines stationed on amphibious assault ships in the Gulf, about 3,000 combat soldiers from 82nd Airborne Division and hundreds of special operations troops, awaiting orders from Trump for action in Iran. They can’t stay there for ever but will have to remain during the proposed 30-day ceasefire extension. However, the US view on what military assets must stay in the region to deter Iran will conflict with the stance adopted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). “Iran appears to believe that it is negotiating from a stronger position than the United States and is accordingly attempting to remake the regional order in a way that benefits Iran,” said the Institute for the Study of War in Washington. This suggests that whatever agreement is signed about reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the long-term plan of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, may be to retain some form of strategic control over the strait. For the purposes of the peace deal with Washington, however, Iran will no doubt initially play ball and reopen the waterway without imposing tolls on shipping, in return for the US lifting its naval blockade of all Iranian ports. The blockade which has involved two dozen US warships and about 150 aircraft, has been remarkably successful: more than 100 commercial ships have been prevented from entering or leaving the ports over the last six weeks. Iran has lost $450 million a day in trade. Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of US Central Command, said the blockade had allowed “zero trade in and out of Iranian ports which has squeezed Iran economically.” Trump has vowed to keep the blockade going because it has been the best leverage against Tehran. But the required quid pro quo – lifting the blockade for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz – will force Admiral Cooper to stand the warships down. Key to guaranteeing the free passage of shipping through the strait in the future will be the presence of a European-led coalition-of-the-willing armada of ships to safeguard all vessels of every nationality. The UK has been in the lead in developing such a coalition. Provided this arrangement is not scuppered by a renewal of Iranian intervention, it could help repair relations between Trump and American allies in Europe which have become frazzled ever since the US launched its war on Iran without consultation on February 28. Trump was angry that European leaders didn’t instantly offer to help in the war on Iran. But if European navies can now play a significant role in ensuring the safety of shipping in the Gulf, Trump might come round to the view that Europe and Nato have a place after all alongside the US. Likewise, the end of the war in Iran would potentially have other positive diplomatic consequences, notably in the Middle East. But that would depend on something which Tehran has been insisting on since the negotiations began, the simultaneous ending of Israel’s war with Hezbollah. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s leader, has warned Trump that Hezbollah, supported and armed by Iran, would always remain a threat to Israeli security, and that he must have the right to protect his citizens by targeting the designated terrorist group whenever required. This will be a stumbling block for Trump’s dream of wrapping the Abraham Accords around all of America’s Arab allies which he sees as the best way to defend Israel long-term and build opposition to Iran. Ultimately, the goal must be more than just containing Iran. Trump says he has found the new leaders in Iran to be more practically-minded. An Iranian regime more intent on pursuing prosperity for its people than threatening Israel, and the Middle East in general, would be a result Trump could boast about for the rest of his presidential term and beyond.