THE PERSIAN KNIFE
What prompted Iran, for the first time ever, to interrupt its policy of a calibrated response to Israeli-US attacks, to strike first at US bases in Jordan? And, less than 48 hours later, to attack a US gas tanker in the port of Damietta, Egypt?
The hypothesis that this was a response to the Saudi-US attacks against some Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces bases, which resulted in around 15 deaths, including five IRGC members, while not ruled out, nevertheless appears unlikely. First, because it would be only the second time Tehran has responded directly to an attack by its Axis of the Resistance allies (the first, against Israel, after an attack on Hezbollah), but above all because Iran always makes its moves according to a strategic logic, never out of mere reactivity. So, what is the reason for this controlled escalation?
The most likely answer is that Tehran believes, rightly so, that Washington is in a particularly difficult moment, and therefore should not be given the opportunity to continue the game of stop-and-go, with military strikes alternating with false pauses in negotiations, while Trump’s narrative oscillates between apocalyptic threats and fanciful tales of Iranians begging for a halt to the airstrikes.
The attack the other day against the Muwaffaq Salti base first and foremost puts to rest the tales spun by the US president. The Iranians are not even trying to return to negotiations; on the contrary, they are expanding their area of intervention (Damietta).
But above all, they are forcing the United States to quickly return to the phase of kinetic conflict, without any tactical pause. And this is precisely because, while this obviously also entails a cost for Iran, the resulting strategic disadvantage for the US is far greater.
Let’s recap. On Wednesday, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of CENTCOM, recommended ceasing the attacks, claiming they had now “reached their maximum effectiveness.” On Monday, the price of Brent oil—which had reached $101 last Friday, in the midst of the kinetic phase—fell to $90.00 a barrel. The Center for Strategic and International Studies confirms that the US used so many munitions during the war that its stockpile of Patriot interceptor missiles is now less than 1,000, while that of THAAD missiles is around 250, and it will take more than 3 years to restore them to pre-war levels. Thus, commanders only intercept threats that pose a risk to US troops; everything else is simply ignored. Today, NBC reports that President Trump lost his temper during a meeting, shouting and ranting in frustration over the military options presented to him and the lack of progress toward an agreement with Iran. In practice, halting the attacks allows the United States to halt, at least temporarily, its spiraling ammunition consumption, push oil prices lower, and buy time to find a solution. Dragging Washington back into a controlled spiral of reciprocal attacks means driving up oil prices, forcing unnecessary ammunition consumption, and not giving the Pentagon time to explore new alternatives.
Once again, in short, Iran’s superior strategic capabilities are confirmed, as is its skillful use of escalation to lock the US into a mode of confrontation that quickly erodes its chances of a painless exit strategy. Tehran holds the upper hand, and is not hesitant to wave it in the American wound.