Fires and Pacts in the Middle East: A Two-Step Forward, One-Step Back Dance
An Unconventional Take by Frauke Niemeyer
Trump's Previous Hideout: Where Honesty Was gave way to Deception
With US bombings striking at Iran's nuclear infrastructure and the suggestive counter-actions by the Mullahs, Trump called for "love, peace, and prosperity." Some may call it naive, but this author believes Trump may have finally hit the mark with his strike against Iran's nuclear program.
Things can quickly spin out of control. Recent reports of an Iranian attack on Haifa, despite the so-called ceasefire, have Israel's right-wing finance minister screaming, "Tehran will tremble." Both nations teeter on the edge of old hate-driven wars. So, while Trump celebrates his "deal" online and predicts a future of "love, peace, and prosperity" for both nations, it's a bit hasty and possibly optimistic. But misplaced or not, it's not entirely unjustified.
Now, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The ceasefire between Israel and Iran may not hold this time. But the fact remains that Trump took a risk, a bold one, over the weekend. After the trade fiasco and running into a brick wall with Putin over the Ukraine deal, this was Trump's first win. However, the game isn't over yet; other risks still linger.
Lots of Options for Escalation
Trump leaving the Mullahs red-faced is almost impossible, given the attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. With Tehran's own logic at play, there was no choice but to escalate the conflict or expand the war. Iran had plenty of options to strike US military bases in Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or the United Arab Emirates.
But was all-out war inevitable? Not in the least, since the playbook from five years ago offers a viable alternative. In 2022, the US assassinated military mastermind Qassem Soleimani. Iran, though severely humiliated by a US strike then, followed a calm and cautious course, first warning the US, and then launching a targeted attack on US military in Iraq. Everybody walked away unscathed.
Surprisingly, the recent attack followed a similar script: Iran attacked US military on a base in Qatar, giving the US a heads-up, and all missiles were successfully intercepted. Escalation avoided, and the case was quickly closed. Iran escalated without escalating. A sensible move, given the circumstances.
Experts Weigh In
According to some, Trump showed the Revolutionary Guard how far superior the US is and that they're not afraid to use this advantage. The precision strike was a powerful deterrent. It appears the message got through to Tehran, reducing the chances of a full-scale conflagration since the weekend.
However, a different concern remains: The strike against Iran's nuclear program would be feasible only if Iran doesn't already possess a nuclear weapon. The prospect of the Mullahs developing their own bomb looms large. On Monday morning, they announced their aims to continue their nuclear program "without interruption."
Could the US strike, intended to hinder Iran's nuclear ambitions, embolden them instead? The last thing we need is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Another fact to consider is that we don't currently have enough information to confirm whether Iran is building its own nuclear weapon in the tunnels of Fordo.
What we do know is that nuclear physicists in Iran have enriched uranium up to 60 percent with the fissile isotope uranium-235. With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), they claim they have almost 400 kilograms of this enriched uranium.
Regardless of their intentions—whether for nuclear energy, medical products, or research—60 percent fissile uranium-235 is unnecessary for any of these purposes. The one goal that can be achieved with it: the atomic bomb. With experts estimating that it only takes a few days to go from 60 to 90 percent, we need to proceed with caution.
Objectives and Intentions
So, why would Iran take such steps toward a nuclear bomb if it has no intention of developing one? Aside from refusing to accept defeat, there are strong reasons the Mullahs might want their own bomb to protect themselves against Israel, which already has one. More importantly, maintaining nuclear incapacitation and being another nuclear power offers the Mullahs the advantage they need to eliminate Israel's existence – a goal firmly embedded in Iranian state doctrine since its inception.
In the past, many of Iran's moves toward the bomb have gone undetected for years, hidden from international inspectors and intelligence agencies. For instance, Israeli intelligence stole documents in 2018 revealing much of Iran's previous attempts to build a bomb through secret channels. Additionally, the Iranian regime has shown a pattern of deception, lying, and secrecy in dealing with the international community.
Current Situation
In conclusion, the Iranian regime has learned a hard lesson this weekend: They are not powerful enough in their current state to face off against their most significant adversaries, and without an atomic weapon, they have little chance of surviving in a full-scale war with either the U.S. or Israel. However, it remains uncertain if the regime will abandon its nuclear ambitions. There is strong evidence supporting the Mullahs' pursuit of a nuclear bomb, but there are no irrefutable proofs.
That being said, one must consider the risks of the U.S. strike as both theimplementation of a strategic move and a violation of international law. This attack wasn't prompted by an immediate threat to the U.S. or a direct request for help from Israel. Furthermore, there were no clear indications of an imminent attack for justification as a preventive strike.
There are three points worth mentioning if you wish to argue that Trump's bombing attack was misjudged. But none of them are absolute, and ignoring the potential consequences of inaction is shortsighted: Not acting, engaging in yet another round of negotiations with a stubborn, deceitful, and dangerous regime, could have consequences. The most perilous one: Iran could continue enriching uranium, disrupt international inspections, and reach the point of having a nuclear bomb in a matter of months or weeks. Then, what options would the U.S. and Israel have?
As events continue to unfold, we need to consider the potential ramifications on the Middle East, the world, and all of humanity. A sensitive international situation with conflict, deception, and looming nuclear threats requires delicate handling—and quick resolutions to prevent further escalation. Stay tuned to future developments in this complex and escalating drama.
The Commission has also been asked to submit a proposal for a directive on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to ionizing radiation in the context of the ongoing war-and-conflicts in the Middle East, given the risks posed by potential nuclear conflicts.
Meanwhile, the politics of the Middle East continue to be shaped by the ongoing standoff between the US and Iran, with Trump's bombings on Iran's nuclear infrastructure escalating tensions and potentially leading to further general-news developments.
