US to continue Iran maximum pressure campaign, but try to avoid military action

WASHINGTON DC (Kurdistan 24) – After a sharp escalation of tensions between Washington and Tehran earlier this month, with the Jan. 3 US assassination of Quds Force leader Qasim Soleimani, followed five days later by an Iranian ballistic missile attack on Iraqi bases where US troops were stationed, the Trump administration plans to maintain economic and political pressure on Iran, but without escalation into major military clashes, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

Indeed, US President Donald Trump signaled the US approach already on Jan. 8, when he gave a televised address explaining his response to the Iranian attacks—more economic sanctions, rather than a military strike.

Read More: Trump deescalates after Iranian missile attacks

In Washington’s view, that approach is working. “US officials said they are increasingly confident Iran and its Mideast allies are looking to avoid a head-on fight with America,” the Journal reported.

Since the clashes, there have been assaults by Iranian proxies in Iraq on US targets, including the US embassy in Baghdad. However, they have produced no casualties and elicited no US response.

Were such attacks to cause serious damage, including US fatalities, presumably, there would be a major US response. But pending such a negative turn, the Trump administration plan is to continue its current course.

US Regional Allies Urge De-escalation

The US position is now close to that of most of its Middle Eastern allies. They have responded in much the same way as the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG): urging a de-escalation of the confrontation.

Read More: Kurdistan Region leaders discuss Iran missile attack, reiterate need for de-escalation

Their major concern, like the KRG, is that they could be caught in the middle of any further military exchanges between Washington and Tehran.

Saudi Arabia’s vice defense minister, Prince Khalid bin Salman, younger brother of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, carried that message to Washington earlier this month, as he met with Trump and other senior US officials.

In addition to protecting their own country, Saudi officials also portrayed their diplomacy as an effort “to achieve security and stability for Iraq,” as Riyadh’s Foreign Minister stated.

The military exchanges between the US and Iran convulsed Iraq, with Shia members of Iraq’s parliament responding with a vote in a non-binding resolution to expel US troops. However, Kurdish and Sunni parliamentarians showed their disapproval of that by boycotting the assembly session.

The US subsequently made clear it would not be leaving Iraq, and after first supporting the parliamentary vote, Iraq’s caretaker prime minister backed away from that position.

Read More: US rejects Abdul Mahdi’s bid to discuss US troop withdrawal

Initially, Saudi Arabia supported an aggressive US posture toward Iran. But in September, Iran struck two major oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, which briefly caused the loss of half of that country’s production.

Tehran tried to hide the origin of the attack, but the US, as well as the Saudis, determined that Iran was behind it. Nonetheless, Washington did little in response.

Read More: US says Iran behind attacks on Saudi oil facilities

Subsequently, Riyadh began to work “quietly” to reduce bilateral tensions between it and Tehran, as The Wall Street Journal reported last month. The attack “was a game-changer,” as a Saudi official explained to the Journal.

Similar concerns exist in Afghanistan, where Iran provides some support to the Taliban, and where the Trump administration has been trying to negotiate an exit from the 18-year-long war, the longest in US history.

Iran could engineer an “escalation in Afghanistan,” a Washington Times story suggested, “with the dual goal of targeting American troops and undermining delicate talks” between the US and the Taliban.

It quoted Pakistan’s Foreign Minister as saying that he was “concerned about Iranian influence in Afghanistan” and the possibility that country “could become the next battleground between Washington and Tehran.”

The exception appears to be Israel, which is “urging continued US military pressure against Iran’s allies in the region,” as the Journal reported.

Israel has been singularly focused on Iran since the early 1990s, when a Labor government took office following the 1991 Gulf war and then proclaimed that Iran – rather than Iraq – had become the principle threat.

Indeed, a decade later, after the 9/11 attacks, Israelis pushed for a war against Iran, rather than Iraq. However, the Bush administration decided otherwise, despite a view common in the Middle East, including in Iran, that the US and Israel are engaged together in a nefarious conspiracy against them.

Editing by Karzan Sulaivany