Against a backdrop of sharply escalating positions on both sides, and direct military targeting instead of proxy confrontations, US President Donald Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei exchanged “brutal” statements. These remarks are reminiscent of similar statements and verbal warfare between President Trump and his North Korean counterpart, Kim Jong Un.
Trump described the North Korean leader as “rocket man. The two presidents engaged in a period of intense rivalry, but Trump ended up describing Kim as”a friend,“saying that he trusted his promises and just”likes to send rockets. “Recently, US President Donald Trump criticized Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Trump commented on Khamenei’s speech in a sermon on Twitter on Friday, saying:”The so-called Supreme Leader of Iran, who has not been so supreme lately, had some nasty things to say about the US and Europe. “Their economy is collapsing, and their people are suffering. He should be very careful with his words.”
The novelty in the war of words between the mullahs’ regime and the US is that this time it is between the top of the pyramid of the Iranian political system and the one who actually controls the regime’s decision, Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Trump directly, and not between the latter and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani as has happened many times before.
President Trump has understood that whoever wants to do business with the mullahs must speak directly with the regime’s leader. Trump’s efforts to arrange a meeting with President Rouhani under French mediation when he was at the UN headquarters in New York last September to attend the meetings of the International Organization’s General Assembly were swept aside by Khamenei.
Will the Korean-American situation be repeated with Iran? We are not talking about a summit meeting between Trump and Khamenei. It’s unlikely today, given the complexities of Iranian politics. But most likely, the fierce war of words between President Trump and the Iranian supreme leader will lead to a directive from the latter to the political leaders to open a direct dialogue with the American side.
This unprecedented war of words between Trump and Khamenei has internal political dimensions that are no less important than dialogue. Both are trying to use the existing conflict situation to gain popular support that strengthens his position.
Internally, the Iranian regime seems to be the weaker one because of the sanctions and public outrage over the downing of the Ukrainian plane, where most of the victims were Iranians, and the limited military response to the murder of Soleimani, which shocked the mullahs’ supporters and their supporters. Some of this anger had to be dissipated through verbal warfare and tactical statements.
On the other hand, President Trump seems to need to distract American public opinion from congressional investigations with him and turn political attention to monitoring the evolution of the crisis with Iran.
What has happened recently has led the Iranian and American sides to get on their high horses with a direct military confrontation, not a proxy war. The US targeted and killed the commander of the Quds Force militia, General Qassem Soleimani. Iran’s calculated military response targeted two military bases where US forces are stationed in Iraq and wounded a number of US soldiers. They therefore need a period of time to ease tensions and resume the cold war.
The current situation is that neither side wants to enter into a military battle, even though it has broken the rules of the game and established new ones. It is more likely that both sides have rediscovered the limits of the other’s capability.
The mullahs have realized that it is possible to target the warheads of their system with conditional US military strikes, and the US has recognized the limits of the precision of the Iranian missile strikes that have hit their two military bases in Iraq.
The game went on with a lot of caution and calm. Iran acknowledged that it had informed the US, through the Swiss mediator, of the time and place of the response to the missiles that hit Soleimani, and that this response would be limited and aimed at retaliation and closure. Despite the presence of approximately 1500 US troops stationed at the two military bases, no Americans died in the Iranian missile attacks. What reinforces the hypothesis that the war is averted is that President Trump adopts a strategy of surprise and then sets out to find a meeting point. This is exactly what has happened in several crises, including North Korea, where many thought we were on the brink of another world war, but it quickly turned into a historic summit between Presidents Trump and Kim.
This scenario is being repeated today between the US and Iran. President Trump has fulfilled his will and achieved the important strategic objectives of the assassination of Soleimani, at a time that could resolve the chances of the forthcoming presidential elections in his favour.
The mullahs have been pushed to respond within the limits of the strike and avoid escalation, and this has already been achieved through a strike that saved the mullahs’ face in front of their supporters, even though the response fell short of the expectations promised in many Iranian statements.
For their part, the Americans have remained silent and have been content to declare that there were no American deaths, as if they accepted the Iranian response and the superpower was not offended.
Despite Iran’s apparent intransigence in rejecting dialogue with the US, I am convinced that the eyes of the US and Iran are now turning to a face-saving path of negotiation.
The US does not want to enter into a direct military confrontation with Iran, and is focused on protecting its strategic interests in Iraq and the region. The mullahs, in turn, realize that the wager on President Trump’s failure to win a second presidential term is very small, and that it is better to extract a political settlement that Trump wants before the US Presidential election in November. The mullahs also want to break the impasse that threatens the collapse of the regime under growing popular pressure and protests.
