Having attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities in Operation “Midnight Hammer” without facing a fierce retaliation, US President Donald Trump indulged in a sense of victory and euphoria. The attack was aimed at annihilating Iran’s nuclear programme.
It would be pertinent to understand the reasons behind US aggression towards Iran. The key lies in understanding the objectives of the US in the Middle East. In this context, a report titled “Challenges and Opportunities for the US in the Middle East” by The Middle East Institute, a Washington-based institution dedicated to the study of the Middle East, can be useful. The report mentions five objectives of the US in the Middle East: ensuring free flow of energy and trade to the world markets, thwarting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, combating terrorist groups, backing the partners and allies, and countering the influence of rival great powers.
In terms of Iran, the report warns the USA that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme, anti-US regional policies, and its proximity to Russia and China are a serious threat to the USA’s interests.
While shedding its hostile approach towards Iran, the US needs to embrace dialogue and diplomacy. Further use of force can compel Iran to step out of the NPT. The US-Israel aggression, failure of diplomacy and dialogue, and ineffectiveness of the NPT may strengthen Iran’s resolve to get nuclear weapons as the only enduring solution to its security challenges
The report further mentions that an unending conflict with Iran will damage all of the prescribed interests of the USA. Furthermore, the report recommends bringing down the Islamic Republic by empowering opposition forces in the country or in the diaspora, if the current regime does not change its course. So, following above-mentioned objectives and perceiving Iran as an unavoidable threat to them, the Trump administration tried to obliterate the nuclear facilities of Iran.
Now, the question arises, has the Trump administration achieved the desired objectives by attacking the nuclear facilities? In one’s view, the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has further added to the challenges to the USA’s hegemonic goals and world diplomacy. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael M. Grossi, maintains that the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has brought ‘severe’ damage but not ‘complete’ damage. He further says that Iran can again produce enriched uranium in ‘a matter of months.’
Iran’s nuclear programme was peaceful and under the meticulous surveillance of the IAEA. However, a reckless military move by the unpredictable Trump Administration has scuttled Iran’s peaceful nuclear position and has shrunk the room for nuclear diplomacy and dialogue.
It is a big blow to the efficacy of the nonproliferation regime. The Non-Proliferation Treaty has appeared to be a wall of sand in ensuring the nuclear security of Iran. This is what Olamide Samuel posits, that “The conclusion many countries may now draw is that complying with NPT is no longer a guarantee of nuclear security.”
Secondly, the US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites has further compelled Iran to look at China and Russia. Recently, China has hosted the defence ministers of Russia and Iran for a meeting in its eastern seaside city of Qingdao. Though China could only extend diplomatic support in the recent 12-day war, it can offer much in terms of weaponry. There are speculations that Iran is set to purchase Chinese equipment, including missile defence systems and J10C fighter jets. Nima Khorrami suggests that fostering a defence partnership with Iran, China would get‘indirect influence over the Strait of Hormuz’. Additionally, this partnership would be instrumental in gaining economic security, bridging the strategic gap left by India in Iran, and challenging India’s ambitions in Central Asia. However, given its relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia, China will have to take a ‘cautious posture.’
Thirdly, the US attack has further consolidated Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s influence. The option of regime change is unlikely to bear fruit. A regime may only be successfully changed when the people of the country take the plunge to do it at any cost. Another option is military rebellion against the established government. However, in the case of Iran, there is no such indication, neither in the people nor in the military. On the contrary, Trump’s attack has solidified the state-people nexus. Furthermore, going for a regime change operation, notwithstanding its remote possibilities, can pose insurmountable challenges to the USA.
First, puppet leaders cannot stay longer in this age of information and awareness nor can they bring peace to their countries. If we look at the history of Iranians, they are unlikely to be compelled to toe the agenda of the USA. It took more than 20 years to bring Raza Pehlvi’s government down but it would be a matter of weeks or months now, if it is somehow restored. Second, regime change would further fortify the Iran-China-Russia nexus at the cost of the USA’s hegemonic goals. It would be a strategic failure for the USA. Third, regime change would bring chaos to the region and the USA would be involved in a never-ending conflict. The Iranian proxies with the assistance of rival global powers would attack the USA’s interests and bases in the Middle East. So, regime change is counterproductive.
Abortive attempt to obliterate the nuclear facilities, Iran’s tilt to China, and failure to bring the Iranian government down show that the Trump administration has achieved nothing substantial by its short-sighted military action. Coercive tactics to force Iran into rolling back its nuclear programme and limiting its missile capability would not work. Aggression is neither in favour of the USA’s objectives nor of regional peace.
While shedding its hostile approach towards Iran, the US needs to embrace dialogue and diplomacy. Further use of force can compel Iran to step out of the NPT. The US-Israel aggression, failure of diplomacy and dialogue, and ineffectiveness of the NPT may strengthen Iran’s resolve to get nuclear weapons as the only enduring solution to its security challenges.
