Mixed Signals Suggest US-Iran Crisis Is Far From Over, Says Security Analyst Jake Sotiriadis

WASHINGTON -- The US House of Representatives has passed a largely symbolic resolution aimed at limiting President Donald Trump's ability to continue military operations against Iran, highlighting growing unease among congressional lawmakers over the conflict. At the same time, senior administration officials have insisted the confrontation is effectively over, even as military exchanges continue across the region.

RFE/RL spoke with Jake Sotiriadis, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security who also advises the US State Department, where he trains diplomats in strategic foresight and geopolitical futures at the Foreign Service Institute, about whether these developments could signal the beginning of a diplomatic off-ramp between Washington and Tehran or merely a pause in a confrontation that still carries a significant risk of escalation.

RFE/RL: What do these mixed signals tell us about where this crisis stands?

Jake Sotiriadis: The administration is following a tactic we've seen previous administrations use when it comes to defining the status of a particular conflict. The House vote is largely symbolic -- it's not a binding resolution that's going to limit the administration's ability to do anything. In the unlikely event that it passes in the Senate in its current form, it still doesn't really have any bearing on the president's ability to conduct military operations.

Symbolically, this is obviously not a good look for the administration. This is not what the administration would like because it is a reflection of the House. This is also in line with current polling. The vast majority of the American public being polled is not in favor of the conflict right now.

SEE ALSO:
US House Approves Measure To End Iran War As Rubio Insists Conflict Is Over

For legal reasons, the administration is saying the conflict is officially over. It's really hard in practical terms to look at where we are right now -- with double-digit drones and missiles hitting Kuwait International Airport [on June 3], with American forces having launched attacks on Qeshm Island, with the Iranians and Americans trading missile attacks -- and say we are completely out of the woods. This is a very volatile situation, and at any moment you could have an escalation in military activity.

RFE/RL: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran has been significantly weakened militarily and economically. How do analysts determine whether a campaign has genuinely changed a state's behavior rather than simply degraded its capabilities?

Sotiriadis: I would suggest Iran's behavior hasn't necessarily changed all that much. This is a core issue when you look at the conflict. The question is whether you're going to be able to change Iran through regime change. I think that's off the table right now.

Yes, Iran's military capabilities have been degraded. Essentially, its navy is nonexistent. The problem with saying that is what the Iranians are demonstrating: You don't need a large conventional navy to control a choke point like the Strait of Hormuz. They're using asymmetric means. They're using a large inventory of drones that they still have, and they're using missile forces they still possess as well.

That's why, in whatever negotiation takes place, if there isn't a limit on Iran's ballistic missile program...that's a capability Iran can use to strike not only throughout the Middle East region but beyond it, as we saw when they fired toward Diego Garcia a few months ago.

SEE ALSO:
Iran's Long-Distance Strikes On Diego Garcia Put Europe On High Alert

RFE/RL: Iran's latest strikes reportedly hit infrastructure around Kuwait's airport and caused casualties. What do these attacks tell us about Tehran's remaining ability to project force despite claims that many of its military assets have been degraded?

Sotiriadis: When it comes to striking targets like Kuwait's airport, oil refineries, or military bases in the region, Iran still has that capability. It still has a large inventory of drones that hasn't been destroyed, and it still has missiles that it can and has been using.

Interestingly, the Iranians are now using the same argument that the Americans have been using: Iran said today that it struck Kuwait in self-defense because it believes attacks were launched from there. The US has similarly argued that strikes on coastal missile and drone sites were carried out in self-defense. S

RFE/RL: Looking specifically at the Strait of Hormuz and shipping lanes, what indicators will you be watching to determine whether the region is moving toward stabilization or renewed confrontation?

Sotiriadis: One of the biggest threats right now is that the Iranians have mined the strait. That's a huge risk to both commercial and military vessels. Any agreement to reopen the strait would require Iran to remove those mines.

This is where help from America's European allies would be useful. If we saw some form of European maritime force assisting with countermine operations, helping clear mines, or escorting vessels, that would be a positive indicator. It would also send a strong message that there is a broader international coalition working together on the issue.

The Europeans have a significant stake in this. Between 12 and 20 percent of their energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians have realized through this conflict that, while much attention is focused on their nuclear program, one of their greatest sources of leverage is geography. They've long understood that closing the Strait of Hormuz was an option. Now they see it as perhaps their most powerful tool.

SEE ALSO:
Defying The US, Iran Is Cementing Its Control Over The Strait Of Hormuz

RFE/RL: Are we witnessing the beginning of a durable diplomatic off-ramp between Washington and Tehran, or merely a pause in a confrontation that still carries a significant risk of escalation?

Sotiriadis: There's always a risk of renewed military operations when things are this volatile. But what options are really left for the administration? One option is simply to walk away, but that would not be a good look. Another option is to launch a more extensive bombing campaign to pressure Iran into negotiations.

Both sides would prefer negotiations. The challenge is that there are still too many irreconcilable differences; whether it's the status of enriched uranium or the $25 billion in reparations Iran is reportedly seeking, those demands are not going to be acceptable to Washington. Likewise, what the US is demanding is not going to be acceptable to Tehran.

Until we get some sort of interim agreement -- perhaps a 60-day pause designed to create space for a longer-term solution -- we're likely to remain in this limbo. I do believe this could continue for a few more months.

 
Mixed Signals Suggest US-Iran Crisis Is Far From Over, Says Security Analyst Jake Sotiriadis

Share

Share

Follow us

Print

This item is part of

• Features
• Iran
• Middle East