Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy
U.S. and Iranian Choices Are Getting Dangerously Narrow
Even if neither side wants war, the road ahead is hazardous.
The smoke is still clearing from the drone strike that killed Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani, and from the Iranian retaliation against U.S. bases in Iraq, and any conclusions have to be tentative ones. But the history of U.S.-Iran conflict points to a narrow, and possibly dangerous, set of choices ahead.
While the proximate cause of the strike was an attack on an Iraqi base that killed an American contractor, and reported intelligence that Suleimani and others were planning future attacks, the action has to be seen in a broader context.
U.S. sanctions are devastating Iran, inflating the rial, and shrinking the economy. Mass demonstrations against economic hardship left Tehran with little choice but to try to change the terms of competition. Diplomatic and economic efforts were not working, so Iran turned to leaning even more heavily on military and paramilitary actions.
The best strategic explanation for Washington’s action was that it was intended to persuade Tehran that the military path, too, is a dead end—maximum pressure across multiple vectors. Yet because the action was rooted in a fundamentally unresolved conflict, even if we enter a lull, the repercussions of the strike are far from over.
Nation-states that feel attacked or aggrieved often become more risk tolerant. They may reason that things are already bad, so the risks incurred appear less formidable. Or they may adopt fatalism, concluding that they have no choice but to act regardless of costs, for reasons of righting an affront to national honor or to meet political imperatives. This logic appears to be particularly compelling to authoritarian regimes, which depend on power rather than democratic procedure for their seats in office. In any event, expect that the events of recent days will make Tehran even more willing to pursue risky tactics and strategies in the coming months, especially if the Quds Force—and its parent body, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—has its way.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via Foreign Policy.
For more information on this publication:
Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation:
Tobey, William.“U.S. and Iranian Choices Are Getting Dangerously Narrow.” Foreign Policy, January 8, 2020.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Impacts of the U.S. Killing of Qassem Soleimani
Analysis & Opinions
- Russia Matters
Expert Survey: Is Nuclear Arms Control Dead or Can New Principles Guide It?
Analysis & Opinions
- Fox News
Trump Takes Risky Gamble Meeting with Kim and Walking Into North Korea
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Press Release
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Barham A. Salih Joins Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Middle East Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School as Senior Fellow
Report
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Arctic Climate Science: A Way Forward for Cooperation through the Arctic Council and Beyond
Journal Article
- Research Policy
The Relationship Between Science and Technology
The smoke is still clearing from the drone strike that killed Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani, and from the Iranian retaliation against U.S. bases in Iraq, and any conclusions have to be tentative ones. But the history of U.S.-Iran conflict points to a narrow, and possibly dangerous, set of choices ahead.
While the proximate cause of the strike was an attack on an Iraqi base that killed an American contractor, and reported intelligence that Suleimani and others were planning future attacks, the action has to be seen in a broader context.
U.S. sanctions are devastating Iran, inflating the rial, and shrinking the economy. Mass demonstrations against economic hardship left Tehran with little choice but to try to change the terms of competition. Diplomatic and economic efforts were not working, so Iran turned to leaning even more heavily on military and paramilitary actions.
The best strategic explanation for Washington’s action was that it was intended to persuade Tehran that the military path, too, is a dead end—maximum pressure across multiple vectors. Yet because the action was rooted in a fundamentally unresolved conflict, even if we enter a lull, the repercussions of the strike are far from over.
Nation-states that feel attacked or aggrieved often become more risk tolerant. They may reason that things are already bad, so the risks incurred appear less formidable. Or they may adopt fatalism, concluding that they have no choice but to act regardless of costs, for reasons of righting an affront to national honor or to meet political imperatives. This logic appears to be particularly compelling to authoritarian regimes, which depend on power rather than democratic procedure for their seats in office. In any event, expect that the events of recent days will make Tehran even more willing to pursue risky tactics and strategies in the coming months, especially if the Quds Force—and its parent body, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—has its way.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via Foreign Policy.- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Impacts of the U.S. Killing of Qassem Soleimani
Analysis & Opinions - Russia Matters
Expert Survey: Is Nuclear Arms Control Dead or Can New Principles Guide It?
Analysis & Opinions - Fox News
Trump Takes Risky Gamble Meeting with Kim and Walking Into North Korea
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Press Release - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Barham A. Salih Joins Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Middle East Initiative at Harvard Kennedy School as Senior Fellow
Report - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Arctic Climate Science: A Way Forward for Cooperation through the Arctic Council and Beyond
Journal Article - Research Policy
The Relationship Between Science and Technology