The US-Iran Conflict: An Arms Race, Confidence, and Regional Influence

Special Report: Brownland
By: Badr Al-Din Abdul Rahman

Since US President Donald Trump returned to the White House at the beginning of last year, his intention to change the Iranian regime has become increasingly apparent on the international and regional political scene. He aims to achieve this by using the nuclear issue as a pressure tactic, alongside igniting internal crises, based on the US claim that the Iranian economy is suffering from severe inflation and recession due to international sanctions.

According to observers, US-Iranian relations have witnessed numerous cracks and fluctuations, marred by a number of factors that pose a threat to US policy and Israel’s efforts to control the region. Among the most prominent of these factors are:

• The Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-1981.
• Repeated accusations of human rights violations by Iran since the Iranian Revolution.
• The religious ideology of the Khomeini regime is considered hostile to the goals of the United States and Israel in the region.
• The political, economic, and security restrictions that the United States has consistently imposed on Iran with the aim of subjugating it.
• The Iranian nuclear program and the issue of uranium enrichment, which has been and remains a chronic and debilitating headache for the United States, the occupation, and politically motivated international and regional organizations.
• The continuous accusations by the United States that Iran supports terrorism in the region in general and sponsors armed factions and groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, which threatens American interests and influence. Meanwhile, following the failure of diplomatic efforts in the Geneva and Amman talks, Trump—in an attempt to weaken the Iranian regime and curtail its influence—continued to threaten a military strike against Iran since last January. This threat was intended to coincide with the recent protests in Tehran, which resulted in several deaths among demonstrators protesting the dire economic situation.

However, according to Axios, Trump backed down or postponed the planned military strike in the Middle East because his country lacked the necessary military capabilities to launch an attack on Iran and manage its regional repercussions, which could trigger a violent upheaval and plunge the entire region into security and military chaos.

This contrasts sharply with the situation last June, when the United States supported the war launched by Israel against Iran. In the same vein, US Special Envoy Steve Wittkopf told various media outlets, against the backdrop of the massive military buildup in the Middle East, that Trump was curious to know why Iran hadn’t “surrendered,” despite the huge US military buildup.

He asked, “Why haven’t they surrendered? I don’t want to use the word ‘surrender,’ but why haven’t they surrendered?”

Wittkopf added, “Why, under this kind of pressure, and with all this naval power we have there, haven’t they come to us and said, ‘We declare that we don’t want to possess (nuclear) weapons?'” Meanwhile, the Iranian response to Trump and his advisor’s bewilderment was ready when Abbas Araqchi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, wrote in a post on his official Twitter account: “Are you wondering why we don’t surrender?” “Because we are Iranians,” as reported by the official Iranian news agency, IRNA.

Military experts did not rule out an Iranian response to a potential military attack targeting its territory, but they believe that the Iranian military response would be limited in the current circumstances, especially since Israel has targeted Tehran’s allies in the region in what is known as the “nail clipping and claw” operation. Axios concluded that the current situation makes this impending war a matter of life and death for the Iranian regime, which is suffering from deep internal problems. Supporters of the regime have said that these problems are “manufactured” to destabilize, weaken, and exhaust Iran from within, making it easier to control.

On another front, and in an effort to ease US-Iranian tensions in the Middle East, the Sultanate of Oman announced—according to international and regional media—that Iran and the United States have shown openness to new solutions, coinciding with the start of indirect talks in Geneva within the framework of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. A statement issued by the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs following a meeting of Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said… With US envoys Steve Wittkopf and Jared Kushner, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said, “The negotiators showed unprecedented openness to new and creative ideas and solutions.”

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei explained that the indirect talks between Iran and the United States focused exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program and its efforts to lift sanctions, adding that Tehran would seek to emphasize Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

However, Baghaei criticized what he described as the “contradictory statements” of US officials, after Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Iran must negotiate its ballistic missile arsenal and that it was on a path to developing weapons capable of reaching the United States “one day.”

Rubio had said earlier at a press conference in Saint Kitts and Nevis, “Trump wants diplomatic solutions; he strongly prefers them,” but he indicated that “we will have to discuss other issues besides the nuclear program.”

Political, security, and strategic complexities, and divergent ambitions and expansionism. The visions, ideas, and goals confirm that the American-Iranian file is one of the most complex international and regional files, as it is based on a chronic conflict regarding trust, regional influence, and nuclear armament.