Nournews: In his foreign policy, Trump is not seeking negotiation but a one-sided transaction; an approach in which the U.S. dictates its conditions and the other party must accept. From Europe to Mexico and China, the U.S. has always used the tools of pressure and sanctions, forcing other countries to accept Washington’s demands. But regarding Iran, this imposed pattern faces a serious obstacle: Tehran’s military and deterrence power, which even American commanders have acknowledged.
The political behavior of Donald Trump at the international level shows that he does not believe in negotiation, nor in its popular concept, nor is he seeking an equal dialogue for achieving an agreement in which both parties’ agreements are met. He has always sought deals; an approach based on which the United States has always imposed its pre-planned framework, and the other party had to bear its costs without enjoying its benefits. The foundational difference between negotiation and a deal is the key to understanding Trump’s foreign policy regarding Iran and other countries.
The pattern of Trump’s deal-making; From Europe to Ukraine
Various examples of Trump’s behavior in the face of different countries show that he has only sought to impose the will of the United States. Regarding interactions with Europe, Trump has pressured NATO member states to pay their defense costs based on Washington’s will. Regarding China, he has forced the country to accept economic concessions by imposing heavy costs without giving mutual concessions. Regarding Mexico and Canada, he put aside the NAFTA deal and imposed a new agreement that was totally to the benefit of the U.S. Now, he is seeking to gain new concessions through the activation of the tariff war.
The same pattern occurred with Ukraine. When Ukraine’s president agreed to give the concession of the exploitation of its special mines to the U.S., he also proposed a logical request: He requested a security guarantee after the execution of the agreement from the U.S. However, Trump did not accept the request because the deal, from his viewpoint, only meant gaining concessions without offering a guarantee or mutual concessions. This caused a verbal dispute between Zelensky and Trump. After the meeting, Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, in an interview with CNN, explicitly announced, “We have no negotiations with Europe.”
Deal-making instead of negotiation: U.S. policy regarding Iran
The same approach in U.S. policies is seen regarding Iran. Trump proposed negotiations but, in practice, aims to force a pre-planned framework and expects Iran to give concessions in different fields, such as nuclear capabilities, regional, and defense policies, without paying any clear equal price. This policy is not a negotiation but a deal with an imposition approach.
The U.S. insistence on dichotomous options of “war or negotiations” is, in fact, the continuation of the same deal-making policy. Washington aims to put Tehran under maximum pressure until it eventually succumbs to a fully unequal deal. A deal in which the U.S. gets concessions, and Iran must only pay the price. However, the experiences of the last two weeks show that the strategy has not been effective regarding Iran, and it will not be.
Why has the U.S. not carried out military action against Iran?
One of the most important questions raised regarding the U.S. and Iran confrontation is: “Why has the U.S., despite tense rhetoric and repeated threats, not launched a direct military action against Iran?” One cannot find the answer to this question in the existence of a humanitarian or peace-seeking approach of Washington. The main factors are the calculation of costs and benefits of such a move for the U.S., as well as the unpredictability of its implications.
An equation the U.S. cannot solve
The military policies of the U.S. have always been based on a precise calculation of benefits and losses. Washington calculates the political, economic, and military costs of its actions before any action; it only starts war when the benefits outweigh the costs. Regarding Iran, the equation has been very complicated and vague. Public support, Iran’s military power, its high deterrence capabilities, and its regional influence have caused the calculations of the U.S. to face challenges. The U.S. knows that any military action against Iran will lead to an extended and uncontrollable war, the consequences of which may exceed what the Pentagon and the White House can manage.
General McKenzie’s admission to Iran’s military power
American military officials have continuously admitted this reality. General Frank McKenzie, the former commander of CENTCOM, who had responsibility for the West Asia for years, acknowledged in an interview that:
“Iran has turned into an influential military power. Any decision about confronting Iran must be adopted based on this undeniable reality. They have been able to create advanced weaponry systems that can be a real threat to us and our allies. One cannot hope for a rapid and inexpensive victory in any conflict with Iran. Targeting Iran’s nuclear program will be very complicated and difficult.”
This admission shows that in countering Iran, the U.S. faces options whose consequences cannot be evaluated correctly. Because of this, despite all threats and maximum pressure policies, Washington has avoided direct military conflict with Iran.
Heavy costs of a likely war
In addition to Iran’s military power, other factors have also influenced the U.S.’s lack of military actions against Iran. Iran’s deterrence ability, its missile systems, as well as its drone capabilities and pro-Iran regional forces, have acted as a deterrence umbrella that would make any attack on Iran face expanded and destructive responses.
Additionally, the U.S. knows that war with Iran would cause turmoil throughout the entire West Asia and endanger the security of Israel, as well as America’s bases. Unlike the U.S.’s previous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, a conflict with Iran would be completely different. Iran is a capable country with extended military abilities and asymmetric warfare capabilities, making its defeat unlikely.
The popular support from the Islamic Republic of Iran, which particularly in the face of foreign threats, provides significant capabilities for the ruling government, is among the other important issues that create an imbalance in the U.S. calculations for any military actions against Iran.
Threat, not action
The U.S. strategy regarding Iran has always been based on threats and pressures. But in practice, military action has not been placed on Washington’s agenda. The reason for this is not the U.S.’s inclination toward peace and negotiation, but the precise calculation of costs and benefits and concerns about the consequences of an all-out war with Iran. Just like General McKenzie admitted, Iran has become an undeniable military power in the region, and this issue has transformed Washington’s strategic equation. Because of that, the military option for the U.S. remains costly, despite Washington’s continuing rhetoric and threats against Iran.
NOURNEWS