Event Recap
In light of the recent assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the escalating tensions in the region, Michael Singh, Trita Parsi and Payam Mohseni -- in a panel discussion moderated by Melani Cammett -- share their views on the future of the U.S.-Iran Confrontation.
“Why in the last six months have Iran and the United States been less than ten minutes away from a full blown war?”
Michael Singh explained the conflict in light of the politics surrounding the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal): following his withdrawal from the international nuclear agreement, President Trump resorted to maximum pressure, a brinkmanship strategy which has high risks associated with it. Whereas Iran could previously export oil under the nuclear agreement, the new economic sanctions forced the Islamic Republic to shift to a new strategy – deterrence. Iran’s strategy of deterrence is two-fold. On one hand, Iran has escalated its regional efforts through its attacks on oil refineries, tanks, and American bases in Iraq. On the other hand, it has increased its nuclear energy program capabilities and is gradually reciprocating a withdrawal from the JCPOA. This in turn has created a security dilemma and has contributed to the escalation of the U.S.-Iran confrontation.
In a similar vein, Trita Parsi attributed the current tense situation to the United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA. The nuclear deal was a stable status quo that the United States has not been able to provide an alternative for. The American strategy of “economic warfare” will inevitably spill over into the threat of military warfare.
What are the consequences of the United States’ maximum pressure strategy?
Payam Mohseni highlights three important ramifications of the maximum pressure strategy on the domestic politics of Iran and, more broadly, on the regional security architecture. President Rouhani’s moderate stance enabled negotiations with the West leading up to the nuclear deal. The United States decision to pull out of the JCPOA will thus first undermine the moderate and reformist positions in Iran, and strengthen the position of the hardliners. Second, Iran does not face imminent threat of regime collapse as became evident in the mass rallies in Iran following the assassination of Qasem Soleimani and moreover the American strategy is consolidating Shi’a transnational mobilization in favor of Iran. Finally, the maximum pressure strategy has and will continue to force Iran to continue its strategy of deterrence and counter-containment. With one of the weakest conventional militaries in the region, Iran has resorted to a cheap and asymmetric defense strategy of funding and supporting allied state and non-state actors, paramilitaries, and other political movements which has in fact strengthened Iran’s regional security stance and provided it significant leverage.
Contrary to Payam Mohseni, Michael Singh believes the collapse of the Islamic Republic to be more imminent. With a growing population of secular youth, the recent protests, and the shooting down of the Ukrainian commercial aircraft, the regime has a serious legitimacy problem. President Rouhani’s election was thus a response to this legitimacy crisis, and will not be influenced by American foreign policy which has limits in impacting Iranian domestic politics. Michael Singh further believes that Iran will attempt to create a crisis to gain more leverage in its nuclear negotiations.
Echoing the opinion of both speakers, Trita Parsi also predicts further escalation. He cautions against viewing the status quo as restored deterrence. While Iran’s response to Qasem Soleimani’s death was not of great magnitude, it is false to assume that the threat of war has disappeared. The United States will continue to escalate and, in turn, Iran will engage in counter containment and deter risks against itself. Pursuing a strategy of maximum pressure will only increase the risk for military conflict.
What should be done? What can be done?
Payam Mohseni highlights the importance of including Iran in genuine regional security agreements and the regional security architecture. Iran currently lacks support from any major nuclear power and is thus attempting to create its own regional security architecture. If the United States were to include Iran in multilateral agreements and recognize its security needs, the Islamic Republic’s security threats would, in turn, diminish.
Michael Singh argues that Iran’s asymmetric strategy disregards the sovereignty of neighboring states and is, more broadly, corrosive to the region. He thus proposes that the United States both bolster the capabilities of Arab states to address the vulnerabilities that Iran is exploiting, and interdict the flow and proliferation of weapons.
Trita Parsi, on the other hand, proposes a hands-off approach. American military hegemony has been destructive to the region and has prohibited countries from finding their own solutions. The United States is not the solution and should instead support local resolutions.
Despite their differences, the speakers all agree that the conflict is likely to increase with high risk of continued escalations. With the upcoming elections in the United States, however, it may be difficult to predict how and when escalation will occur and the immediate context which will inform the decision making processes within both the United States and Iran.
For Further Readings:
--
Event Description (past event)
Faculty Co-Chair of the Project on Shi'ism and Global Affairs, Professor Melani Cammett will be moderating a timely discussion on the future of the U.S.-Iran conflict and the dangerous horizon that lies ahead with speakers Michael Singh, Trita Parsi, Stephen Peter Rosen, and Payam Mohseni. Date & Location: CGIS Knafel K-262, 1737 Cambridge St., Cambridge MA 02138.
Melani Cammett is Clarence Dillon Professor of International Affairs in the Department of Government, Acting Director of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and Chair of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies at Harvard University. She also holds a secondary faculty appointment at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Michael Singh is the Lane-Swig Senior Fellow and managing director at The Washington Institute and a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council.
Trita Parsi is the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute. He is an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign politics, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He has authored three books on US foreign policy in the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iran and Israel.
Stephen Peter Rosen is the Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at the Department of Government at Harvard University and the Chair of the Weatherhead Research Cluster on International Security.
Payam Mohseni is the Director of the Project on Shi'ism and Global Affairs at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affaira. He is also a Lecturer in the Department of Government at Harvard University and served as a Lecturer on Islamic Studies at the Harvard Divinity School.
LOCATION:CGIS Knafel K-262, 1737 Cambridge St., Cambridge MA 02138 STATUS:CONFIRMED DTSTART:20200131T193000Z DTEND:20200131T193000Z END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR