TEHRAN – An international media assessment of Iran-US negotiations prior to talks on Saturday, April 11, essentially suggested that military conflict between the two countries is inevitable.
Most national analysts on Tehran-Washington’s relationship reflect these views, and most Iranian analysts also believed that it was very unlikely that the two countries could avoid conflicts and escalations. However, it is still too early to judge and we will have to wait to see how negotiations progress.
That said, I personally don’t share and don’t share this perspective. My analysis is different, at least so far. I believe the risk of a military conflict between Iran and the United States, or Iran and Israel, is not that high. There are a number of factors to consider to explain why I do not share my beliefs about impending conflict. After examining these factors, I conclude that military conflict between the two countries is unlikely to be in any form.
One important reason is internal development within the US. The character of Donald Trump plays an important role in US policymaking, both as a president and a unique political figure. It is very important for him to hope and pursue.
I believe Trump doesn’t want to ultimately engage in military conflicts everywhere, especially with Iran. When he says he doesn’t want the United States to head towards war, he is true despite his reputation for injustice. Trump is generally not considered an honest politician and is often deliberately misleading, but in this particular issue with Iran, he is sincere. Many figures from his administration, including Michael Waltz, a former US military officer who is now a national security adviser, supporting a military conflict with Iran, which was influenced by the Israeli lobby. They continue to push for conflict and put pressure on Washington.
Despite all this, Trump rarely succumbs to current pressure on military action, just as he resisted Pompeo and Bolton’s efforts during his first term to escalate tensions with Iran (which ultimately dismisses both). In an essential interview with Tucker Carlson, Steve Witcoff explained Trump’s decision-making style, saying that Trump doesn’t read the report or listen to briefings, but best responds to direct a conversation that outlines his desires and whether he pays to achieve them.
Witkov, who has worked with Trump for more than 30 years and is now a trustworthy figure in his administration, stressed his desire for peace and stability in West Asia to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. As long as that goal is achievable, there is no indication that Trump is going to push towards conflict.
Another factor to consider is the practical nature of Trump. He’s not stupid. His estimated $4 billion fortune didn’t come easily. He knows his position and the challenges he faces. Trump has already been involved in several economic and political conflicts, and Europe, China and Russia — adding a costly long war with Iran, will be disastrous, causing US inflation and declining stock markets. Past wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have reached trillions of dollars, with Afghanistan alone exceeding $2.6 trillion. That decision is usually economically driven, Trump is unlikely to launch a new war that could further harm the perception of the US economy and its people.
Some argue that war benefits the US arms industry, but in reality, American weapons are sold without war. For example, countries in Saudi Arabia and other regions remain major buyers.
In summary, economic considerations, Trump’s decision-making model, and history suggest that he is not leaning towards war.
The role of local actors
It is also essential to consider the role of local players. During the JCPOA negotiations, many Persian Gulf countries opposed it. But today, no one wants war. Even the United Arab Emirates, Israel’s closest ally in the region, is not seeking military escalation. Contrary to some perceptions, the US and Trump are sensitive to the desires of these countries.
Iran’s position
Iran’s stance also helps reduce the risk of conflict. General Bagheri, the Iranian military’s chief of staff, said that leading the position of the Supreme Leader, did not want war or military escalation.
The role of Europe, Russia and China
Despite their dissatisfaction with Iran’s attitude towards Ukraine, the European Union also appears to be uninterested in starting a war in the region.
Russia initially wanted to use Iran and Ukraine as a negotiation tip with the US, but lost its leverage when Trump announced his intentions for a direct meeting with Iran. Moscow is now on the sidelines, so for the time being, it is an inactive player.
China’s stance is not very clear. Historically, China supports Iran with nuclear technology, is a leading provider of modern technology, and maintains Iran from Iran. China’s role is important, but their current policies are vague.
Global Supply Chain
Beyond all these factors, global supply chains may be the most important deterrent for war. West Asia is important for raw materials, energy, transportation and markets. The stability of the region shares the interests of the US, EU, China and regional countries. This mutual interest in regional security is a strong barrier to military escalation.
Spoilers
Globally, there is little desire for new conflicts as Israel and Netanyahu are key supporters of the conflict. However, they now recognize that US and other global and regional authority do not support military escalation.
Instead, Israel is pursuing two major strategies.
1. To maintain pressure on Iran, strengthen the presence of US troops in Diego Garcia under the doctrine of “peace under force.”
2. Rather than completely preventing consultations (as did during Trump’s first term), it undermines Muscat negotiations through political and media efforts by disrupting them and guiding them towards failure.
Internally, some groups say that Iran does not advocate for direct wars, but that they may try to raise conflicts through proxies in order to benefit economically. Therefore, it is essential to secure the negotiation process.
The risk of military conflict appears to have been declining overall. However, it is important to make it clear that this applies primarily to traditional warfare. Other forms of conflict, such as assassination, instability, or cyber warfare, are possible and cannot be ruled out.