Article by Paul Rogers republished from OpenDemocracy.

By extending the pause in fighting, Donald Trump admits that Iran is in a strong bargaining position – so what next?

The US-Israeli war on Iran has reached an unexpected pause. An easing of tensions between Washington and Tehran now extends to Donald Trump changing his mind yet again and extending the informal ceasefire deadline. His motive is allegedly to allow the Iranian government more time to agree to a proposal that meets US requirements, but it is also an admission that Iran is in a strong bargaining position.

There are complications, though. One is that while the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintain control of the Strait of Hormuz, US armed forces are blockading Iranian ports to stop commercial shipping. The aim is to put such pressure on Iran’s weakened economy that the leadership in Tehran will quickly accept US terms. That’s unlikely. 

While a few days ago, Iranian sources were suggesting that they might loosen their control of the Strait of Hormuz, any progress in that direction has now been halted until the US maritime blockade is lifted. Only then might Iran participate in negotiations on a settlement.

Furthermore, while Israel is also participating in the pause in bombing, it is very much a separate actor. It has plenty of influence in Washington and is led by Binyamin Netanyahu, who wants nothing less than total victory over Iran.

All this is overshadowed by the current state of the conflict. In essence, the war failed to meet US or Israeli expectations almost from the start. Most of Iran’s theocratic and political leaders were assassinated by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in the first week but were rapidly replaced, and the country held together. Then, not only did the powerful IRGC survive an intensive combined air assault by US and Israeli forces, it even went on the offensive, concentrating on targets such as radar, satellite communications, aerial refuelling and intelligence gathering. 

Iran may have had thousands of people killed and billions of dollars of damage done to its economy, but it has not been defeated and is not ready to cede to the US’s demands. Moreover, one of the impacts of the losses among the theocratic, political and IRGC leaderships is that there has been a radicalisation as a new generation takes shape.  

This is reflected particularly in the hard-line position of the powerful IRGC leader, Major General Ahmad Vahidi, who is prepared to withdraw from negotiations, at least for now.   This contrasts with two political leaders, the speaker of the Majlis (parliament), Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and the foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, who seem to favour a more nuanced approach.

Compromise may be possible within Iran, but it is unlikely that it will be enough for the United States, where most of the key people around Trump have been appointed because they toe the line. Those who appear to disagree with the president have been sacked or have left, the latest being navy secretary John Phelan after barely a year in post, although he was reportedly ousted over a dispute about shipbuilding, rather than Iran.  

Meanwhile, the IRGC’s control of the Strait of Hormuz has already had a long-term impact, according to a classified Pentagon briefing to Congress reported on by the Washington Post. Even if an end to the fighting was negotiated, post-war necessities such as clearing Hormuz of Iranian-laid mines could affect oil and gas prices for six months, right up to the Congressional mid-term elections. 

More immediately, IRGC units have fired on some commercial ships, forcing them to abide by Iranian controls. The US Navy has done the same to enforce its blockade, with one case from last weekend having a political significance that has been largely missed in the Western media and that goes some way to explaining Iran’s response to intense US and Israeli military pressure.

The US destroyer USS Spruance attempted to board an Iranian cargo ship, Touska, in the Arabian Sea to force it to stop. The Iranian ship’s crew refused to do so for six hours until the US destroyer ordered the crew to evacuate its engine room. This they did, and the engine was then put out of action by the Spruance firing several rounds of its main armament, a 5-inch Mk 45 gun. The Touska was then boarded and taken into US Navy custody.

There is an important historical context to this. The Spruance’s firing of its main artillery armament in anger was the first time a US Navy warship had done so in nearly 40 years. Highly relevant is that the last time also came amid a conflict with Iran. 

In the final months of Iraq’s eight-year-long war against Iran, in which the US had sided with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, a US destroyer was damaged by an Iranian mine. Days later, on 18 April 1988, the US Navy mounted ‘Operation Praying Mantis’ in the Gulf, which involved an attack on an Iranian frigate, IRIS Joshan, by a formidable US Navy task force of a guided missile cruiser, a destroyer and a frigate. The Joshan was sunk with heavy loss of life, 45 crew killed, and the US operation continued to destroy two Iranian surveillance platforms and two other naval vessels. 

Thirty-eight years ago, Operation Praying Mantis was seen as a great success by the Pentagon, but it was a wake-up call for the Iranians, and especially the IRGC. In recent years, the IRGC has built a fleet of around a thousand fast attack craft suited to swarm attacks on much larger warships, has a stockpile of around two thousand mines, shore-based anti-ship missiles and drone swarms. 

As a result of that instance nearly four decades ago, Iran’s military resilience improved. Today, that’s resulting in two of the world’s most powerful states, the United States and Israel, being unable to win their war.

For the US, in particular, Iran now joins Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya in a line of failed wars over the past quarter century. Whether that lesson will be learned by a Pentagon led by Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump is doubtful.

Article by Paul Rogers republished from OpenDemocracy.