Afrasianet - Dr. Jamal Qasim - The Trump administration has so far engaged in about five rounds of negotiations with Iran on the latter's nuclear file, ending with an Israeli attack deep inside Iran, preceded by the evacuation of some American nationals in the region.

The Iranian Islamic Revolution marked a milestone in the historical relations between the United States of America and the State of Iran, as the United States considered the former regime of the Shah of Iran an important strategic ally after the end of World War II in stabilizing the Middle East.

At the time, the United States did not need to send its navies or soldiers to protect its strategic interests in the region. The Shah of Iran played the role of the American policeman well at the time, until the Iranian revolution and the subsequent complications in the American-Iranian scene.

Iran has been considering using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes since the Shah's time with limited U.S. assistance.

Iran's desire to expand its peaceful nuclear energy production has increased dramatically over the last two decades, making it eligible to produce nuclear weapons whenever there is the political will to produce them.

Therefore, the Iranian nuclear file has been one of the main issues of concern for US foreign policy in the Middle East.

But why did US President Trump allow Israel to attack Iran for now, despite recent rounds of negotiations between the United States and Iran?

Trump's Foreign Orientations and the Iranian Nuclear File

US President Trump's political desire, when he entered the White House at the beginning of his second term, was to reach a political agreement with Iran that prevents the latter from obtaining nuclear weapons without resorting to the use of the US military force option to achieve this.

US President Trump canceled the recent nuclear deal with Iran, signed by the administration of former US President Barack Obama, describing that agreement at the time as a "very bad deal" that allowed Iran to obtain billions of US dollars, and relieved it of many economic sanctions imposed on it at the time.

Therefore, when President Trump entered the White House – during his first term – worked to cancel this nuclear agreement by the United States of America, while imposing strong economic sanctions against Iran.

It is worth noting here that former President Joe Biden could not conclude another nuclear agreement with Iran, and therefore the relationship between the United States and Iran has remained tense until the present time.

President Trump came to the White House as president-elect for the second time earlier this year, bringing with him the "carrot and stick" as a foreign policy approach to Iran, reaffirming his administration's desire to conclude an agreement that prevents Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, in exchange for the lifting of recent sanctions targeting Iran's oil industry and export, as well as commercial and financial dealings with Iranian banks.

President Trump believed that this American "carrot" could bring great economic benefit to some American companies, in the event of a major political and economic breakthrough between Iran and the United States, which seems unlikely to happen now in light of the recent Israeli attacks against Iranian targets.

Trump tried to conclude an agreement with Iran using a method in which he raises the ceiling of his negotiating demands, such as his desire to completely stop uranium enrichment, which Iran did not agree to, as it always claims its sovereign right to enrich uranium to lower degrees, to benefit from it for civilian uses according to the specifications of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Trump also tried to negotiate a gradual agreement to lift economic sanctions on Iran, rather than lifting them completely at once, as the latter demands.

This issue—along with Iran's demands to preserve its right to enrich uranium for peaceful uses—was another obstacle to a new nuclear deal.

There is no doubt that the Gulf mediators, led by the Sultanate of Oman and Saudi Arabia, have tried to strive to bring the American and Iranian views closer to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear file peacefully, and to spare the region more wars and military tensions.

Trump has consistently waved the Israeli stick against Iran as another strategic option in the event of a nuclear deal failing and Iran's insistence on continuing the process of enriching uranium at high levels.

Israel and the United States have been in a race against time to completely halt Iran's nuclear program, especially with the frequency of international reports that Iran has significantly increased uranium enrichment levels that make it very close to producing a nuclear weapon.

But Trump hopes that the scope of the war will not expand after the recent Israeli attacks, and that the Iranian response will be limited, as it was when Palestinian leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran.

Trump may hope that Iran will later return to the negotiating table after removing the biggest threat in its nuclear program.

But Trump may not realize the danger of exchanging Israeli and Iranian attacks on the Middle East and world peace, and the United States may find itself forced to go to war again in the Middle East if things get out of hand.

Israel's position

Israel, through its recent attacks against Iran, is trying to appear strong and dominating the region, fighting in several quarters in Gaza, Yemen and Iran, but Israel also seems less powerful this time than it was more than a decade ago, when former President Barack Obama was negotiating with Iran over its nuclear file.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bet on his political abilities to convince Trump to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear facilities, but Trump wants Israel to carry out that attack itself, stressing that this is a unilateral Israeli attack, not in coordination with the United States of America.

Israel can achieve some strategic objectives during these attacks, due to its intelligence, which made it able to target some Iranian military leaders, but in the long run Israel will not be able to enter a long war against Iran, and it is also fighting in Gaza, receiving Houthi missiles, and suffering from great international isolation.

Whatever military support US President Trump provides to Israel, prolonging the war between Israel and Iran will cost the United States a lot of losses and give Russia and China a window of opportunity to strengthen their influence in the Middle East.

Netanyahu believes that the continuation of the Israeli war machine is the only guarantee for his survival in power, and for the unification of Israeli parties behind their army as it fights these wars.

However, Israel has become more inflamed and is more vulnerable to targeting in its depth of security than in wars it has fought in the past.

Iran's position and expected response

Iran's WMD strategy is based on learning the political lessons of three countries that have dealt with the United States: North Korea, Iraq, and Libya.

The Iraqi case reveals that making big concessions, such as those of former President Saddam Hussein — and allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect even his presidential palaces — did not help him avoid war on his country.

The Libyan model came after the Iraq war, when Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program and agreed to provide billions of dollars in financial compensation to the victims of his regime, whether Western citizens or others.

These major concessions led to the lifting of the economic embargo on Libya, and the acceptance of dealing with it by the Western international community, before the overthrow of the regime after the outbreak of the Arab Spring revolution in Libya.

As for the Korean model, it remains the closest to Iran, as North Korea adopted great intransigence until it was able to acquire the nuclear bomb, and then it became difficult to control it or launch an international war against it.

But the regional circumstances surrounding Iran are different from those surrounding Korea.

These negotiations also came in a regional context in which Iran has lost much of its hegemony, such as the loss of its ally Assad in Syria and the weakness of its ally Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But the option of continuing to enrich uranium will remain an Iranian strategic choice — including the ability to produce a bomb in the long term — that it will not be able to give up easily, as the Trump administration has predicted.

Therefore, the recent Israeli attacks will not deter Iran from continuing its nuclear program, as it is the first guarantor of its security, as is the case with the North Korean state. 

Iran will launch a quick attack against Israel, preparing for a long-term war, should Israeli attacks continue, as Iran appears more willing and experienced in long-term wars than Israel.

US President Trump can give the green light to Israel to attack Iran, but he can never give the red light to stop the war between them. 

Dr. Jamal Qasim - Specialist in Middle Eastern Studies and Political Science at Grand Valley State University, US