Iran, US mobilisations could lead to conflict

Behind recent US and Iranian military mobilisations lies a perception by each side that the other may be about to attack. This doesn’t appear to be posturing by either nation but is instead a confrontation that could lead to actual conflict if there’s a miscalculation.
The United States sent an aircraft carrier task force, bombers and other assets to the Middle East last weekend after officials concluded that Iran had altered its strategy of waiting out the Trump administration’s pressure campaign — and was instead making preparations for a possible military strike on US forces in the region.
Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, the new US Central Command leader, said in a speech that the buildup came “in direct response to a number of troubling and escalatory indicators and warnings.” His spokesman, Navy Capt. Bill Urban, had said the previous day there were “clear indications that Iranian and Iranian proxy forces are making preparations to possibly attack US forces in the region.”
This sense of an imminent Iranian threat marks a break from what US officials had predicted just two weeks ago. At that time, officials expected that Tehran would try to ride out President Trump’s campaign of sanctions over the next 20 months, in the hope they would be removed by his successor.
But last week, based on new information, the United States concluded that the Iranians had decided to reset their strategy now and were moving military equipment to prepare for action. It’s not clear whether this turnabout happened because US sanctions were squeezing so hard that the Iranians couldn’t wait until January 2021, or because they concluded that Trump might be reelected.
The message of US willingness to use force appears to have registered with Iran and its proxies. I received a text message from an American who travels widely in Syria and Iraq. He said he was contacting me on behalf of the head of the leading Iran-backed Shiite militia organisation in Iraq. According to this intermediary, Iran-backed forces had “pre-positioned themselves to respond to US escalation,” but “there was no plan for attack, only a response if the US attacked.”
The militia leader’s tone seemed conciliatory: “There is still an opening to de-escalate things if the other side doesn’t want
direct conflict,” he said,
according to the intermediary who had been asked to speak on his behalf. The American intermediary, whom I’ve known for nearly a decade, conveyed the message on condition that the militia leader’s name and organisation wouldn’t be directly identified.
US officials have been particularly worried about a possible attack by Iranian proxies on the more than 5,000 US troops in Iraq, who are training Iraqi military forces and otherwise bolstering security in the country. So the message from the Iranian militia leader speaks, at least indirectly, to a major American concern.
The Iranian-backed militias were said to have been especially worried after US helicopters dropped flares near Camp Speicher in Iraq, near Tikrit, where some of the Shiite militias are based. The flares ignited fields of crops near the base, and the militias apparently feared that this might be a prelude to military action.
The larger question emerging from the
showdown is where the US strategy of “maximum pressure” is heading. The Iranians clearly are feeling the squeeze and looking for a way to push back.
Part of Tehran’s pushback was this week’s announcement by President Hassan Rouhani that Iran would withdraw from parts of the 2015 nuclear agreement, in response to Trump’s announcement that he was abandoning the pact and reimposing US sanctions. The Pentagon has feared that the Iranian reset might include kinetic military action, too, in the hope that it would push the United States back towards negotiations.
Iran’s confusion about the Trump administration was exemplified by a comment by Majid Takht Ravanchi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. She asked whether Rouhani would be willing to sit down with Trump and negotiate a broader agreement, which Trump has sometimes said was his goal.
“All of a sudden, he said that ‘I don’t like this and let’s sit down and talk about another rounds of negotiations,'” Ravanchi said. “What is the guarantee that he will not renege again on the future talks between Iran and the United States?”
What’s clearest, after the week of saber rattling, is that Iran was mistaken if it hoped that a show of force would lead the United States to retreat. McKenzie put it bluntly in his speech: “Any attack on US interests will be met with unrelenting force.” That doesn’t sound like a bluff.

—The Washington Post

David Ignatius is an American journalist and novelist. He is an associate editor and columnist for The Washington Post