-
The One Absolute Non-Negotiable Item with Iran
Why is it so important for the U.S. to take and retain control of the Strait of Hormuz? No matter what else, why is this the only real non-negotiable with Iran?
At first glance the non-negotiable seems to be Iran’s nuclear program. This leaves open the question of what might be left of the program at all after massive bombing by the U.S. and Israel. The media makes much of some enriched uranium supposed still buried under one of the ruined sites, and of course no one should simply write off radioactive material in the hands of an adversary. But the more immediate concern is not what remnants of Iran’s nuclear program survived bombing, but how easily any reconstruction effort could be detected from space and struck from a distance. That reality makes the nuclear issue containable. The genie is out of the bottle on bombing inside Iran, so any nascent efforts to reconstruct a nuclear program can be destroyed by the U.S. and Israel with little political fallout. It would be better if none of that had to happen, but it easily could, because agreement or no agreement, Iran does not have to play fair.
Understanding what the U.S. is really negotiating with Iran — the shifting of the balance of power in the Middle East — points to the one truly non-negotiable term. That means the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway that must be open to shipping, free of violence, and free of tolls.
Granting control of the strait to Iran would set a catastrophic precedent. Would Houthi militants then try for control at the mouth of the Red Sea? What if Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China or any of the other nation-states in the region lay claim to the Strait of Malacca? Never mind the Persian Gulf; over 94,000 vessels a year pass through Malacca, making it the busiest strait in the world. It carries about 25 percent of the world’s traded goods, including oil, and Chinese manufactured products. For decades China referred to the “Malacca Dilemma,” the fear that rivals could blockade this narrow, vital energy route, so it could be time to act. Just this week (coincidence?) China deployed ships to tighten control of the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea, roiling tension with the Philippines. And what about the Taiwan Strait, or any other of the world’s commercial chokepoints?
Since the days of the Barbary pirates one of the core jobs of the United States Navy has been safeguarding global freedom of navigation, a principle that underpins international trade and economic stability. By maintaining a forward-deployed presence in key maritime chokepoints and with carrier groups in all oceans, the Navy ensures sea lanes remain open in accordance with international law. No one nation comes close to being able to play such a role. Europe’s sea power has not been able to do so since the collapse of the British Empire, and China still lacks the global blue water navy and extensive world-wide base network to try.
At present China is willing to benefit from this stable maritime order without contributing much to it. Yet a world where it appears the order is breaking down, such as if Iran remains in control of Hormuz, could press China to act. While China still lacks naval reach, it may already be capable of asserting control over regional chokepoints like the Strait of Malacca, especially if it concludes the existing maritime order is eroding. For its own self-interest (oil) China also could expand diplomacy and arms sales to the new toughest kid on the Gulf block, Tehran. Elsewhere, the Gulf states and maybe even allied countries in East Asia will have to soften ties with the U.S. in recognition of the new regional power of Iran.
But we don’t need to cede control of the Strait of Hormuz. Forcing it open is a military objective for which the Pentagon has planned for decades, and has in some form already been done twice. The Trump White House will remember in 2019 the Islamic Revolutionary Guard threatened to close the Strait. It sabotaged four oil tankers in the United Arab Emirates and damaged two others with mines. But in the end Iran backed away from the fight. It could not afford a potential blockade of its oil exports along the lines of Venezuela. The U.S. could blockade the Strait at low cost in the Arabian Sea, away from Iranian interference. Iran also knows while it could harass and frighten, it can not seal the Strait to all traffic in the face of a massive U.S. Navy deployment. This would morph from asymmetrical warfare Iran could execute, to peer-to-peer fighting, which if the U.S. was willing to escalate to, Iran could not survive.
Even more instructive is the Iran–Iraq “Tanker War.” Between 1984 and 1988, oil tankers and merchant vessels became targets for Iran in a campaign designed not to defeat an enemy navy but to strangle the Iraqi economy. After an unsuccessful gambit to reflag Kuwaiti tankers as American to warn off the Iranians, a change in American tactics neutralized the Iranian threat. The United States shifted from escorting tankers to directly confronting Iranian forces. The turning point came in April 1988, after a U.S. frigate struck a mine in the Gulf. Although the ship survived, the incident triggered a massive American retaliation. In Operation Praying Mantis, U.S. helicopters disabled an Iranian ship laying mines, and sank three other Iranian boats. Navy warships shelled Revolutionary Guard bases and Iranian oil platforms. SEALs destroyed a platform as well. Navy and Marine elements would go on to selectively destroy multiple targets as well as numerous Iranian naval and aircraft. The 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) now in the Gulf would be able to carry out a similar strategy.
Having gone this far, the U.S. may need to go further. This power struggle between Washington and Tehran has been going on for a long time. This most recent round follows an emboldened Iran who watched the United States destroy or greatly weaken its two major enemies, Iraq and the Taliban, clearing both Iran’s east and west borders at no cost to Tehran. The American public went on to lose its taste for war and Iran’s nukes fell off Washington’s once sweeping martial agenda in the Middle East. Iraq became an Iranian subjugate even as Iran expanded its proxy fighting in Lebanon knowing the U.S. had had enough.
It would be strategically devastating at this point for America to follow the regional empowerment of Iran through its failures in Iraq and Afghanistan by handing over a global lever of control. This regional, multigenerational, power struggle is not a problem that will be solved in a single negotiation or a single conflict. But one principle must remain constant: the Strait of Hormuz cannot become a bargaining chip. If it does, the consequences will extend far beyond the Middle East, reshaping the global order in ways the United States may not be able to reverse.
Old sayings resonate in the Middle East. “The rug is never sold” reminds marketplace negotiators that no deal is ever final; there is always more to extract. That is useful context if U.S. officials sit down again with the Iranians for another bite at the apple. But amid the expected give-and-take, one issue must remain non-negotiable: keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Why Does Media Misrepresent the Iran War?
Why does the U.S. mainstream media continue to mock America’s war efforts? Why does coverage of the Iran war appear to favor Iranian narratives?
The New York Times pulled no punches on where it thinks things stood just before the pre-cease fire. “A slurring Trump rehashed a bunch of his Truth Social posts, alternately boasting about America’s military progress while threatening war crimes… He showed us that he has no plan to get out of the mess he created. One way to judge how the war is going is to look at which side is trying to wrap it up. U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that ‘the Iranian government believes it is in a strong position in the war and does not have to accede to America’s diplomatic demands.'” Even after the ceasefire and plans to reopen the Strait was announced, the Times could only sum up Trump’s power diplomacy as “the mark of an impulsive leader who is used to getting his way through coercion and unpredictability” and that he had “backed down.”
The Times goes on to review “American war crimes” and claims bombing only strengthened Iranian resolve. It concludes “all we know is that he [Trump] has managed to give Iran the upper hand in this conflict while tanking the global economy and shredding America’s most important alliances.” Another headline claims the takeaway from the earlier rescue of the downed American airman was all of “Trump is Emboldened” followed by “Trump Revels in Threats to Commit War Crimes in Iran” now that the missing airman is safe.
Another piece claims “Iran has now demonstrated de facto control over much of the global economy. Its Parliament is considering whether to formalize the charging of fees for passage, and an Iranian official warned earlier on social media that the United States would not regain access to the strait.” The article goes on to place suffering on a scale of justice, expressing regret over the civilian deaths in Iran without mentioning those in Israel. It cryptically refers to “displaced millions” across the Gulf without indicating who they might be. It blames all these problems and more on Trump personally.
An Op-Ed headlined “Remember the Oil Shocks of the ’70s? This Is Going to Be Worse. Much Worse” depicts the global economy spiraling out of control by citing the cost of a gallon of gas. It fails to note the price for gas peaked at around $5 per gallon in June 2022 under the worst of the Biden inflation, and almost $6 during COVID and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Crude oil, varying between $88 a barrel and over $100, hit $116 in 2022 without the media writing in apocalyptical terms, never mind blaming one man. It has already dropped to $93 following the ceasefire.
The prize for most egregious telling of the Iran War story pre-cease fire, however, goes to flagship Democratic journal Foreign Affairs, which features an article written by none other than Javad Zarif, the Islamic Republic’s former Vice President, Foreign Minister, and UN Representative. Zarif writes “…More than a month in, the Islamic Republic is clearly winning it. American and Israeli forces have spent weeks incessantly bombing Iranian territory, killing thousands of people and damaging hundreds of buildings, all in hopes of toppling the country’s government. Yet Iran has held the line and successfully defended its interests. It has maintained continuity of leadership even as its top officials have been assassinated, and it has repeatedly hit back at its aggressors even as they strike at its military, civilian, and industrial facilities. The Americans and the Israelis who started the conflict with delusions of forcing capitulation thus find themselves in a quagmire without an exit strategy. The Iranians, by contrast, have pulled off a historic feat of resistance.” He concludes the U.S. must now basically sue for peace with Tehran and remove the sanctions which have been in place for the 47 years, since Iran took over the American Embassy in Tehran and began asymmetric war across the Gulf. If not, Zarif warns, there is “reason to continue fighting until the aggressors are adequately punished rather than to search for a negotiated ending.” A companion article by a former State Department official claims “Tehran will now set the terms for peace.”
The dominant tone in high-visibility outlets frames Donald Trump’s decisions not just as controversial or risky, but as inherently unserious, worthy of ridicule, even dangerous. Late-night, top-tier Op-Eds, and even purported straight news analysis emphasize impulsiveness, strategic incoherence, or near-comedic personal motivations (the entire war is nothing but cover for the Epstein files!) behind decision-making. Thus every action is wrong, and every loss of American life, however tragic, is actually an exaggerated negative turning point. When a deadline is extended, it is seen as an example of weakness rather than a diplomatic tool. The troops, from the generals on down, once labeled by the media as the baby killers of Vietnam, have morphed into a sort of victim themselves, forced to commit war crimes in a meaningless struggle.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) accused media of engaging in selective coverage that benefited Iran during the first 30 days of the war. “I read the entire political spectrum on Epic Fury. Iran now loves and learns from the media,” Fetterman said. “The media’s selective coverage rewards and reinforces Iran’s strategy. Media amplifies the one percent chaos Iran creates, while ignoring the 99 percent of Iran’s beatdown.”
From an ironic point of view, based on American media coverage, one can’t help but be impressed by what the Iranians apparently have accomplished. Despite weeks of bombing, the destruction of over 12,000 targets, the loss of layers of tested leadership, the effective end of its navy and air force, the loss of oil revenue through the Strait, and the end of relationships with all the other Gulf states, it seems the Iranians have brought America down to its knees, stuck in a quagmire watching the world collapse around it. Iranian actions are admired as tactically clever, disciplined, and strategically effective as they take American military and Israeli civilian lives. There is almost respect for the plucky Iranian ability to harm our own people. All after only some six weeks.
Criticism often focuses on this being a war without end. In comparison, what did the media say about the Vietnam War (1,018 weeks), or Iraq II (about 416 weeks depending on who is counting)? America’s longest war, in Afghanistan, went on for some 1,040 weeks. The 1991 air campaign in Iraq, part of universally praised (at the time) Operation Desert Storm, lasted for approximately six weeks, about the same as today’s Iran war and needed to be followed by a massive ground invasion. The media initially celebrated each of those wars, and in the case of Iraq II and Afghanistan, tolerated true quagmires for decades across multiple presidencies, going as far as agreeing to label flat-out escalations as the nicer sounding “surges.” For years they allowed completely false claims about weapons of mass destruction to stand solidly as justification for war in Iraq, even as they have turned Trump’s own war objectives into an SNL skit.
During the Cold War, mainstream media often assessed the Soviet military and later the North Vietnamese with a degree of awe. The issue today is when only derision toward American leadership and blind praise for Iranian effectiveness are published. When a headline mocks a U.S. operation as chaotic while another describes Iran’s response as “measured” or “savvy,” the cumulative effect can feel less like reporting and more like an expectation. The United States, once the most powerful nation in the world with overwhelming technological capability, is recast as bumbling, while its adversary is granted the aura of competence and control.
Some tension among patriotism, objectivity, and partisanship is actually a good thing for the media to wrestle with. Intelligent skepticism is good. During the later stages of the Vietnam war, criticism centered on whether journalists had legitimately lost faith in U.S. policy. The debate was mostly whether the media turned against the war too soon, or did it simply reflect the emerging reality? A mostly shared narrative organically evolved over time. In contrast, criticism today is that the media purposely practices distortion with selective coverage that purposely highlights or creates failures while ignoring progress.
It is too early to know how this war ends, or even if the ceasefire will hold in the short term. But that is not the real issue here as revealed by the media. The coverage of the current war comes down to the desire to humiliate Trump. The mess, from the gas pump to the Middle East writ large, is entirely Trump’s fault. He is bleeding out American pocketbooks and American soldiers lives for some unclear personal gain (if not just being duped by Israel). His believed eventual failure with Iran, amplified in lockstep by the media, is what will finally bring down the King when lawsuits, impeachments, Russiagate, pussy hats, and the Epstein files failed. When audiences watch American actions mocked while Iranian actions are admired even as troops suffer, the distinction of whose side the media are on can become difficult to figure out. Helluva way to run a war.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.
Buy Peter’s Books on Amazon!
