For all the post-fact criticism it receive from both sides of the political spectrum, Trump's zig-zagging course of action with Iran might have more than meets the eye. True to their chess tradition, Iranians tried a gambit, provoking US's military reaction.
Looking at the course of events, it is evident that the weaker player, Iran is playing the aggressor instead of US. First, with the attacks to tankers menacing with cutting the strait of Hormuz. Then, doubling down by downing an unmanned drone.
Trump was in both cases forced to react. His first reaction was foreseeable: threatening military action. The second -calling out an air strike- was not.
Most partisan pundits focused on Trump rather than Iran. Let's turn the attention to the aggressor.
Why a weaker country in dire economic straits invites military aggression from a rival with overwhelming superiority?
What is Iran to win with provoking US to bomb its military installations?
The answer is clear: jacking up oil price.
An US attack would rise significantly giving Iran's economy a desperately needed shot in the arm. Trump's first vague threat of military action sent oil price 6 % up in an instant.
Prices could rise up to 100 usd per barrel giving an immediate 50% revenue boost to Iran's exports. Moreover, US efforts in keeping Hormuz strait open would paradoxically benefit Iran.
Iran is playing the "mouse that roared" tactic. Like in Peter Seller's classic movie, war with US can pay handsomely to the defeated.
That's why not taking the bait can be a good response, saving not only Iranian lives, but keeping the choke hold on Iran's economy while assessing more strategic military options, such as setting up a NATO/ Gulf nations joint force to protect Hormuz or even destroy Iranian anti-aircraft and anti-ship capabilities.
Both countries seem to play their national games: Iran's chess gambit is met with US's poker's bluff.
No comments:
Post a Comment