Iran is playing with fire, said US President Donald Trump, warning the mullahs from continuing their policy and urging them to recognize the difference between him and his predecessor, ‘nice’ former President Obama.
Now the cold war of words started again between Tehran and Washington as a failed missile test was recently conducted by Iran. I do not see a strategic goal for this experiment besides testing the intentions of and provoking the Trump administration.
After well studying the experience and behavior of North Korea, Iran is moving using the same strategy, taking advantage of the Iranian skill in negotiating with the West after managing to make the nuclear deal through which a great deal of frozen assets were recovered. It has also succeeded in tempting Western companies into making deals in civil aviation and other commercial and industrial areas.
What Iran is doing now is a type of calculated offensive provocation to have the White House reveal its intentions. Tehran began provocation before the US administration had the time to study the Iran file and relevant alternatives. The mullahs are experienced in negotiation, prevarication and winning time. They moved early to elicit reactivity from the Trump administration that could only condemn the missile test, while the new administration is also busy defending the decision to ban refugees, and push for the construction of the Mexico wall.
Some observers believe that the new sanctions imposed by the US administration on some Iranian companies, institutions and individuals angered the mullahs in Tehran, but that is the point behind the calculated provocation. Sanctions have also riled some international powers that seek opening up on the Iranian economy.
President Trump says that the Iranians do not appreciate how much President Obama was good to them, and confirms that he is not like him. The problem is that the mullahs understand well such statements, and may have already dealt with tougher US Presidents like George W. Bush, who was more aggressive and bolder than Trump. I think that the latter has a different strategy as he is fluent in bargaining like the Iranians. The world may watch an exciting battle of negotiators. Iran is evasive and has a lot of patience, whereas President Trump is a businessman who can spot good deals, in addition to his populist character.
Many US officials have said that Iran was playing with fire or something to that effect but the mullahs were not intimidated. The Iranians even take steps, today with the missile test, tomorrow in the Syrian case maybe. It is all a brinkmanship game initiated and mastered by Iran.
The GCC does not have to limit itself to watch this distracting game anymore. The Gulf Arab countries should determine actions paths regardless of the cold war or any indicators of a ‘hot’ war that could break out between Iran and the United States.
The interests of the GCC countries and the Iranian-American relations are two different things and the GCC should stop waiting for the US to deal with Iran or limit its influence and strategic expansion. Some US-Iranian understandings or calculations can negatively affect the GCC–US strategic relations. The GCC countries must act for their own interest.
Interests change, but innovative alternatives can help determining the future of relations of the Gulf Council with the US strategic partner, taking into account the future of energy, US isolationism, the China-US relations, Iran’s expansionist aspirations, the roles of regional powers such as Turkey, India, Pakistan and Egypt, in the security of the Gulf, and the Israeli factor.
