3W will summarize the main developments regarding Iran since our last analysis of the subject last Thursday, before venturing into the question, what should Iran do now?.
So far in our analysis, we have said that the plan to attack Iran is primarily an Israeli plan. We also said that the emergency visit by Israeli prime minister Netanyahu to the White House about two weeks ago was most likely because of fears that Trump was backtracking from this plan. Our last assessment was that Netanyahu – and his associates inside elite US economic and political circles – appeared successful in his bid to win Trump over, as the way the negotiations in Geneva are being handled indicates the US is not serious about them. From which we concluded that most likely, the US – Israel Alliance is using the negotiations to lull the Iranians into a sense of security before striking again.
Then late last week the Wall Street Journal reported that US president Trump was weighing a “limited military strike” on Iran, to force it to meet his demands for a nuclear deal – and to avoid the major war that Israel would love to see. Connected to this, Axios writes that it was joint chiefs chairman general Dan Caine who has been advising Trump and other top US officials that a military campaign against Iran could carry significant risks, in particular the possibility of becoming entangled in a prolonged conflict. Reuters also spoke to an unnamed “White House insider” who said there is no consensus on Iran within Trump-circles, with some pushing for an attack and others calling for restraint and a focus on the economy.
US senator Lindsay Graham, meanwhile, is one of the “Trump insiders” calling for all-out war, Axios writes separately. At 3W we have previously mentioned that Graham represents Israeli interests, not the US’s. “I understand concerns about major military operations in the Middle East given past entanglements. However, the voices who counsel against getting entangled seem to ignore the consequences of letting evil go unchecked,” Graham told Axios.
Even if US president Trump orders only “limited” military action, Iran’s response to US attacks will be “severe”, Tehran said on Monday, according to The National. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said: “There is no such thing as a limited attack. An act of aggression is an act of aggression.” He said Iran’s response to any such attack would be “firm and severe”.
The US and Iran will hold another round of negotiations in Geneva on Thursday. But, writes The New York Times, Iran is not intent on making big concession to avoid a US – Israel Alliance military attack. “For Iran, submitting to US terms is more dangerous than suffering another US strike,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran director of the International Crisis Group. “They don’t believe that once they capitulate, the US will alleviate the pressure. They believe that would only encourage the U.S. to go for the jugular.” In the 3W view, the Iranians are correct in their assessment. And, we at 3W add, it appears to be working in Iran’s favor, as on Thursday the two sides will consider a proposal that offers an off-ramp to war: Allowing Iran a limited nuclear enrichment program for civilian purposes.
The above raises an important question: Should Iran do even more than just take a firm, principled stance in negotiations? Should it consider launching a preemptive strike in self-defense? According to the principles of international law, which neither the US and Israel speak of but never actually have abided by, Iran has a right to launch such a preemptive strike in self-defense. The US has been very clear, namely, that it is amassing an army to attack Iran, and US president has even explicitly threatened he will attack Iran if it does not voluntarily surrender to US demands – which, 3W notes, infringe on Iran’s sovereign rights under international law, namely the sovereign right to have a civilian nuclear program in accordance with the non-proliferation treatment, and the sovereign right to establish an army for self-defense purposes. In support of the argument that Iran should execute a preemptive strike in self-defense, for example in the form of striking one of the US aircraft carriers threatening it, is the fact that Trump tends to “chicken out” when called out on his bluff. By displaying the ability to hurt the US and Israel badly, Iran could show its capability to defend itself and its intent to do. This increases Iran’s ”deterrence”. But the argument against striking pre-emptively in self-defense now is the fact that the US already appears afraid to do what Israel wants it to do. And while a pre-emptive strike could make the US chicken out, it could also be used by the Israeli’s to manipulate US public opinion and make it demand war in Iran. In other words, the option of a pre-emptive strike in self-defense is a high-risk option.
In the 3W view, the most appropriate additional action Iran could undertake at this stage, is build the nuclear bomb and announce its completion. It needs to remember that the US – Israel Alliance will not stop harassing it until Iran has been brought to its knees, such that Israel can do in the Middle East whatever it wants, unopposed. Including, as US ambassador Huckerbee said, establish Greater Israel by taking more land, not only from the Palestinians but also from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. So while it is winning in the diplomatic arena at present, even a new agreement will not ensure it peace. It will just be used by the US – Israel Alliance to regroup, reorganize, and develop a new plan for destroying Iran’s inherent capabilities as a nation state. A pre-emptive strike in self-defense might make the US (not Israel) abandon this ultimate objective, but it might also accelerate the development of a new plan which features approaches such as “carpet bombing” or Iran. An Iranian nuclear weapon, however, would almost certainly force the US to adopt a new stance towards Iran, irrespective of Israeli pressure, as it establishes a new reality that simply cannot be dominated by the US.