The USS Abraham Lincoln: Could the US withstand the Revolutionary Guard's "swarming" tactics? Photo credit: Official US Navy photo
Headlines claiming that tensions between the west and Iran are rising to a boiling point are, by now, familiar to the point of cliché. But the recalcitrant Islamic Republic and the western powers that wish to corral it do appear to be hurtling towards a confrontation, if recent events are any indication.
On Sunday, the American aircraft carrier the USS Abraham Lincoln, flanked by French and British warships, sailed through the Strait of Hormuz, after Tehran threatened to close the critical shipping lane for oil leaving the Persian Gulf. The ships passed through the Strait without incident, despite warnings from Iran that the US’s presence in the area would merit a response. Officials denied that the small flotilla was intended as a show of strength or warning to Iran, and claimed that it was intended “to underline the unwavering international commitment to maintaining rights of passage under international law”.
The next day, European Union foreign ministers imposed new sanctions on the Iran, aimed at forcing the nation to abandon its nuclear development program. Tehan has long claimed that its nuclear ambitions are purely civilian, but the West believes that it is attempting to develop a nuclear weapon and may be getting close to achieving that goal. The sanctions ban the import of Iranian crude oil and petroleum products, a source of funding for Iran’s nuclear program; the EU also froze the Iranian Central Bank’s assets and blocked trade with the country in diamonds, gold and precious metals. In an effort to mitigate the effect losing Iranian oil will have on already battered economies in Greece and Italy, the EU agreed to a grace period until July before the embargo takes full effect.
Oil futures rose about $110 a barrel on the news of the EU embargo.
Tehran, unsurprisingly, is bristling under the new sanctions: Having already suggested that an embargo is tantamount to a declaration of war, Iran’s political class is falling over itself to be angry. One politician again suggested blockading the Strait of Horumz, while another suggested cutting off crude shipments to the EU immediately, a move that could devastate Italy and Greece. And the decision comes just a week after an Iranian nuclear scientist was killed by, Tehran claims, Israel, the US, or some shady collusion of the two.
So, is war in the works?
America uncertain. Some Americans are advocating bombing Iran’s nuclear program into the next century – would-be GOP presidential nominee Rick Santorum among them – while others are championing a diplomatic approach to convincing Iran to give up its nuclear dream. “For now, American policy lives between these poles of attack and acquiescence, in the realm of uncertain calculation and imperfect options,” wrote Bill Keller at The New York Times. But bombing Iran would be the absolute worst idea: “That short-term paradox comes wrapped up in a long-term paradox: an attack on Iran is almost certain to unify the Iranian people around the mullahs and provoke the supreme leader to redouble Iran’s nuclear pursuits, only deeper underground this time, and without international inspectors around. Over at the Pentagon, you sometimes hear it put this way: Bombing Iran is the best way to guarantee exactly what we are trying to prevent.”
Press TV sees war: On January 20, the British Office of Communication revoked Iranian broadcaster Press TV’s license and removed the channel from Sky’s platform, on the grounds that editorial control was clearly in the hands of the Iranian government. Press TV claimed that the move was censorship; worse, it was an attempt to keep the “truth about Iran” out of the UK media and “to set the stage for an attack on the country”.
In an American election year. David E. Sanger, in a piece of analysis in The New York Times, noted that one of the compounding factors is that this is an election year in America: “Every country involved in the dispute over Iran’s possibly acquiring nuclear weapons is calculating how the American presidential election plays to its agenda. The politics of soaring oil prices loom over any threat of military conflict, even a brief skirmish in the Strait of Hormuz. And with global economic turmoil a reality and leadership changes possible or certain this year in the United States, Russia, China and France, the game gets even more complex.” The calculation, therefore, is inconclusive – bombing Iran might help President Barack Obama’s re-election chances, it might not; increased economic pressure might encourage the Iranian regime to fold, but it might not. No one knows, but one thing is for sure: Whoever is sworn into office next January, there’s no doubt the Iranian problem will still be there.
Gingrich wants to overthrow the Iranian regime. Newt Gingrich, whose win in South Carolina’s primary on Saturday makes him a frontrunner for the Republic presidential nomination and makes his opinions on Iran therefore important, wants to overthrow the Iranian regime. How? Bombs and hackers. Or maybe some “deniable assassinations” and the will of the Iranian people. “Either way, Gingrich is promising a reckoning with Tehran. And he’s going to have ‘so much fun’ doing it,” Wired claimed.
War games: Julian Borger at The Guardian analysed the choices facing Tehran and Washington – and concluded that all options are high risk. And, he added, “Even if Washington and Tehran remain determined to avoid an all-out war, with every passing month there is a rising chance of one breaking out by accident.”
War is brewing – a war of dangerous words. Republican candidates for the presidential nomination are preaching a hardline regime change in Iran; the Obama Administration isn’t there yet, but military intervention is on the table. Tehran, meanwhile, may judge that engaging the West in a military campaign is not just the only option, but it’s the one that would allow it to play the “valiant leader” in the fight against America’s global imperialism, said Simon Tisdall at The Guardian. You’d think that the eight years America spent in Iraq would give its leaders pause before considering another regime-change adventure. “But as in 2002-03, the sense grows that decision makers and opinion leaders on both sides, caught up in their own false narratives, are not listening.”
More on Iran and war
- Iranian scientist murdered, Tehran blames US, Israel
- Iran sentences American “spy” to death
- Top ten myths about Iran that need dispelling
- Iran lashes out at ‘ineffective’ sanctions
- Iran can make a bomb, says IAEA – now what?
