Credit:Stratfor:
The United States imposed sanctions on Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security on Thursday, while semi-official state media reported that a political official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) had again threatened that Iran will attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, however, the IRGC official also emphasized the need for a “calm atmosphere.” Similarly, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe expressed confidence that Iran is beginning to open up.
Iran and the United States have for years been locked in a cycle of crises separated by periods of comparative calm and conciliation; this series of contradictory developments in a single day is thus hardly unprecedented. The same is true of contradictory developments between the United States and Afghanistan, or between Washington and Moscow. While the differences between each of these cases are profound, Stratfor has analyzed the talks between these relevant parties for a common reason: Despite the potential for intensifying conflict or active hostilities, not one of these cases can be resolved using military force at an acceptable cost.
Put another way, the risk, expense and commitment of attempting to impose one’s will on the other, whether by physical destruction of their means to resist or by psychological destruction of their will to resist, is daunting and perhaps futile. The players in each case would already be partners or allies if they shared significant common ground with one another. In Washington’s dealings vis-a-vis Tehran, the Afghan Taliban and Moscow, the players involved all have an incentive to reach an intermediate solution.
Categories: Americas