Trump underestimated Iran’s resilience. Now there is only one way out of war

Melbourne, Apr 1 (The Conversation): For all their claims of military success in their war with Iran, the United States and Israel have yet to clearly define their rationale for starting the conflict, their goals and their exit strategy.

With the Iranian regime having mounted a robust response, the Middle East has been plunged into an unnecessary confrontation with no end in sight.

When US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started this war a month ago, they didn’t have a clear understanding of the nature of the Iranian regime and its defensive capability.

They didn’t expect Tehran to counter their offensives with an unprecedented level of preparedness, striking US bases across the Persian Gulf and hitting Israel hard.

Nor did they anticipate Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz, partially or fully, to cause a shortage of oil and gas with severe consequences for the global economy.

Driven by an embrace of military power, they acted on a belief that American and Israeli might from the air and sea would force the Islamic government to quickly capitulate, enabling the Iranian people to instigate a favourable regime change – something that has not transpired.

With a military victory now looking increasingly elusive, Trump will need to pivot to a diplomatic solution – and force Netanyahu to comply.

Why Iran has proven so resilient

Prior to the war, the Islamic government was under enormous domestic pressure and international criticism for its suppression of widespread public protests that left thousands of Iranians dead.

The regime was also struggling to come to terms with Israel’s degradation of its regional affiliates, Hamas and Hezbollah in particular, not to mention the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship in Syria.

While distrustful of Trump, it felt compelled to enter into negotiations with the US once more for a viable settlement of its controversial nuclear program. In late February, the chief mediator, the Omani foreign minister, said a deal was within reach.

When the US and Israel attacked instead, it gave the Islamic government a different sort of opportunity: it could demonstrate the resilience it had spent decades building.

Iran’s system of authority, governance and security was structured to withstand the loss of its leaders and commanders. The regime had shown this in the 1980s in the face of stiff internal opposition, the eight-year war with Iraq, US efforts to contain it and regional hostility.

The Islamic government has also managed to survive despite its theocratic impositions, frequent public uprisings and domestic and foreign policy shortfalls.

The reasons for this include: 1. the belief of many Shia Muslims in revolutionary Islamism 2. its combination of ideological rigidity and pragmatic flexibility, and a dedicated and entrenched security, intelligence and administrative apparatus whose survival is dependent on the regime’s survival.

While many Iranians have wanted to see the back of the Islamic government, most are still very proud of their cultural and civilisational heritage. They don’t like to see Iran being subjected to outside aggression, destruction and humiliation.

A war of endurance

This explains why many Iranians have rallied around the flag, as they have historically done against outside aggression.

Knowing it cannot match the firepower of the US and Israel, the Islamic government has shown ingenuity in creating a “mosaic defence” strategy of asymmetrical warfare.

This entails adapting and responding to US military weaknesses (for instance, by targeting US bases in Persian Gulf countries with drones and missiles) and decentralising its command structure so leaders can quickly be replaced when they are killed.

The regime has been assisted by Russia and China with supplies of dual-use technologies and revenue from oil imports. Russia has also reportedly been giving Iran intelligence on the location of US assets in the region.

And although Iran’s regional affiliates have been degraded, they are still capable of backing the Islamic Republic in the conflict. Both Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis have entered the war by targeting Israel. The Houthis may also attempt to disrupt shipping through the Red Sea.

In short, the Iranian government is resolved to deny the US and Israel a victory at all costs. Given this, the conflict has become a war of endurance.

A deal is the only way out

How long the US, Israel and Iran stay in the fight is a matter of conjecture. However, as the situation stands, the space for a diplomatic resolution has very much tightened. Iran has not shown a desire to back down, and the US and Israel are not united in their goals.

Trump may eventually settle for a deal on Iran’s nuclear program and a potential reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, given the costs of the war and his falling poll numbers in a year of mid-term elections.

But Netanyahu seems adamant in his pursuit. He wants to destroy the Islamic government and weaken the Iranian state as a regional actor.

What is increasingly clear is the war is unlikely to end by military means. The only way forward is a negotiated settlement. The onus will therefore fall on Trump to pull Netanyahu into line and take the lead on trying to strike a deal.

Some analysts have already concluded that no matter how the war ends, Iran is prevailing.