Iranian protesters hold up posters on Sunday showing the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, centre, and the late revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, following the U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites.Vahid Salemi/The Associated Press
Dennis Horak was Canada’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Yemen from 2015 to 2018 and chargé d’affaires in Iran from 2009 to 2012.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities was probably inevitable. The United States, like much of the rest of the world, has long been concerned about the trajectory of Iran’s nuclear program. With Israel having already damaged much of the program and severely degraded Iran’s air defences, it is understandable that Mr. Trump would take this opportunity to try and finish the job.
The full extent of the damage is not yet known publicly. Early assessments suggest that while Natanz and Isfahan were both significantly damaged, the situation in Fordow, deep into the mountain, is less clear. Even if the program has not been “obliterated” as Mr. Trump suggested, there is little doubt that the Iranian nuclear program has been set back significantly.
The larger question at this point is what happens now. The Iranians have been warning the U.S. about the risks of getting involved in their conflict with Israel. That “very big red line” has now been crossed and the ball is in Iran’s court. They have been weakened by their conflict with Israel, but they still have options.
U.S. troops and installations in Bahrain, Qatar and Iraq are within relatively easy reach of Iran and/or its proxies, and Iranian terror attacks in the U.S. or against U.S. interests elsewhere are possible. Closing the Strait of Hormuz, as Iran’s parliament reportedly voted to do on Sunday, would upend Gulf oil shipments, impacting the global economy. The U.S. response to any of these steps would be swift and harsh.
Carney calls for de-escalation talks to resume after U.S. strikes Iran
Analysis: Trump opens a war on three fronts with strikes on Iran
The Iranian regime probably doesn’t know what to do at this point. It knows that hitting back at the U.S. would be costly; however, it also likely worries that not responding would only invite future attacks and perhaps a sustained effort at regime change. Some within the regime could be banking on Mr. Trump’s much-vaunted opposition to getting the U.S. involved in “forever wars” and conclude that it could respond without consequences. That would almost certainly be a massive miscalculation, but never underestimate the Iranian regime’s ability to overplay a bad hand.
For the moment, the U.S. is likely content with what it has accomplished and has no stomach for an extended fight with Iran unless provoked, although it might go back if damage assessments determine that more needs to be done to really degrade Iran’s nuclear program.
For some, that may not be enough. There will be hawks in the Trump administration and in Congress – and in Israel – seeing this past week as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal with the Islamic Republic once and for all by pressing for regime change. Musings about targeting the Supreme Leader and continuing to press the regime militarily until it topples over have gotten louder and will continue to be amplified, especially if the U.S. is drawn into a more sustained operation.
It sounds so simple on social media. It isn’t. Despite the pressure it is under, Iran is not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Muammar Gadhafi Libya. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the ultimate authority in Iran, but that power comes from the Office of the Supreme Leader, not him personally. The current Islamic Republic is not a personality cult. He would be easily replaced. Moreover, calls for “regime change” beg the question: Change to whom or to what? There are no great options waiting in the wings. “Regime change” at this point would mean chaos.
Analysis: Collapse of Iranian regime could have unintended consequences for U.S. and Israel
The U.S. attacks brought risks of escalation, but they could also be the way out. Having dealt with Iran’s worrisome nuclear program, maybe an opening has been created to bring this current conflict to an end. At the very least it may have reopened the door to a diplomatic solution. Iran has been desperate to retain its right to enrichment, but the cost of that right has clearly gone up significantly. If nuclear weapons are not the goal, is nuclear fuel self-sufficiency really worth all this? Does it even have a nuclear enrichment program to protect anymore if and when diplomatic negotiations resume?
Iran is at a crossroads, perhaps an existential one. Does the regime want to go to war with the U.S. and Israel, or is there a way out so it can live to fight another day. In 1988 Iran faced a similar dilemma in agreeing to the conditions set out to end the Iran-Iraq war. Ayatollah Khomeini, who was then Supreme Leader, famously likened the terms to “drinking from a chalice of poison” but took a sip anyway because he determined that the survival of the regime depended on it. Iran may be at that moment now.