Will Iran again sip the ‘poison' of a forced peace, or escalate?
At 86, with much of his life's work in ruins around him, he may prefer martyrdom to the surrender that President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel are demanding of him.
Advertisement
Iran's first response was defiant. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran is resolved to defend Iran's territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means against the United States' criminal aggression,' the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Iran has launched a serious barrage of missiles on Israel. It may, as it has warned, attack some of the 40,000 US soldiers in the region.
What will be crucial is whether Iran's retaliation is prolonged. If it does enough to convince the Iranian people that it has not capitulated, Khamenei may then decide to enter talks with the United States about a settlement of the war.
After all, in January 2020, when Trump ordered the assassination of a key Iranian figure in his first term, General Qassem Soleimani, with a drone strike in Iraq, Iran responded with a punishing wave of missile attacks against US troops in Iraq. It then stopped, fearing a wider war that could threaten the regime.
Advertisement
Iran has a variety of responses if it chooses, that show both resistance and restraint, said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, a London-based think tank. Khamenei could approve leaving the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expelling the nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency who have been monitoring Iran's nuclear facilities. He could target those US bases in the region that have largely been evacuated and activate the Houthis in Yemen to resume their attacks on American ships in the Red Sea.
'This would be actually a cautious mix of options designed to show that Iran has the ability and the daring to stand up to Trump, but is still trying to avoid full-scale regional escalation,' Vakil said.
'If Khamenei sidesteps strikes on the US, this lays the pathway for diplomacy and will signal to Trump his intention to de-escalate,' she said. Trump, too, by warning Iran of the strikes in advance and limiting them, at least so far, to the three main Iranian nuclear sites, also showed restraint, she said. The US attacks, for instance, spared political targets and military bases.
But Khamenei hardly trusts Trump after he unilaterally pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran agreed to with the Obama administration and other governments in 2018. Even if there were a new pact agreed upon now, Vakil asked, 'could he trust Trump to provide sanctions relief and ensure Israel is on board?'
Iran could do much more, of course. It could try to close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, a move that could drive up oil prices by blocking oil tankers from leaving or entering the Persian Gulf. It could attack the energy infrastructure of Gulf states, as it did in 2019. It has a sophisticated cyberwarfare program that it could activate. And it could work with Al Qaeda to hit Israeli and US interests in the region and abroad, from bases to embassies.
Advertisement
Iran will do more, and aggressively, said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran specialist at the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank. 'Iran knew this was coming and will have prepared a chain of responses,' she said, with an immediate escalation of attacks against Israel.
But Trump's efforts to draw a line now will fail, she said. Attacks against the United States 'are now inevitable and will be swift and multilayered,' Geranmayeh said. 'Iran knows it cannot win this war — but wants to ensure that the US and Israel also lose.'
A lot will depend on the assessment of the damage done, which is still unclear. It is also unclear where Iran's large stock of highly enriched uranium is. Iran has enough to make up to 10 nuclear warheads with a bit more enrichment, according to the US military. Many analysts assume that Iran has dispersed it, perhaps where IAEA inspectors cannot access it.
The IAEA said Sunday that there had been no indication of radioactive leakage, which would be the case if the uranium stockpiles had been hit, said Vali Nasr, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and author of 'Iran's Grand Strategy: A Political History.' That is one reason the United States and Europe should do all they can to keep Iran in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the IAEA, he said, so the world does not lose its eyes and ears on Iran's nuclear program.
Advertisement
For Nasr, the conflict is just beginning, not ending. For Iran, he said, 'it will be live to fight again.' There is 'no one grand gesture after which everything will change,' he added.
Most important, he said, 'the larger lesson for Iran is that it needs serious deterrence, and a bomb is the only one that will work.' Iran's missiles and proxies did not protect it, Nasr said. Even if Khamenei dies, the country has been shown to be vulnerable, he said, and nuclear deterrence is the most likely response.
Geranmayeh agrees. 'This is the great irony,' she said. 'Although Trump has sought to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran, he has now made it far more likely that Iran becomes a nuclear state.'
And that could mean a future of continued bombing campaigns and Iranian counterstrikes, she said.
Still, Geranmayeh believes that diplomacy is the best way out for all parties. After a week of violence in the region, she said, 'there could be a window for Tehran and Washington to come to their senses.'
Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council, a think tank, is skeptical. With so much damage to their expensive nuclear program, he said in an email, 'they probably won't rebuild.' Iran has 'spent billions of dollars and decades only to invite sanctions and a devastating war with the most powerful country in the world. Why hit replay on that tape?'
Advertisement
If Iran does rebuild, he said, the United States 'can hit them again.'
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
NATO allies will pledge to hike defense spend – but will they deliver?
Fireworks could kick off during NATO's annual summit this week, as the U.S. pushes its allies to sharply increase their defense spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). The 5% figure is made up of 3.5% of GDP that should be spent on "pure" defense, with an extra 1.5% of GDP going to security-related infrastructure, such as cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence. While some member states they're happy to hit that milestone, and some countries are not too far off that mark, others don't even meet the 2% threshold that was agreed over a decade ago. While they might pledge to increase defense spending, whether these promises materializes will be the key question. Talk is cheap and timelines can be vague — but concerted action is what the U.S. and President Donald Trump, who's attending a NATO summit for the first time since 2019, will want to see. "The U.S. is looking for everybody to say, 'Yeah, we mean it. We have a plan. 5% is real. We're going to get there'," Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO and distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), said Wednesday. "But one thing to watch for is if the messaging is actually on point. Some of the messaging from some of our European allies, at least when they back brief their own media and their own parliaments is, 'Yeah, 5% but it's really 3.5% and 1.5%, and that can be pretty much anything' ... So there's going to be a whittling down [of defense spending pledges] almost immediately," Volker noted at a CEPA briefing ahead of the NATO summit. "And if that is over emphasized, you're going to have a clash with the U.S.," Volker added. The stakes are high as allies meet in The Hague in the Netherlands on June 24-25, given ongoing conflict in Ukraine and war in the Middle East threatening to destabilize the global economy. Defense analysts say this year's meeting could be the most consequential in the alliance's 77-year history, with the U.S.' spend-pushing heavily forewarned before the summit. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was emphatic as he said 5% "will happen" at a separate NATO gathering earlier this month, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also widely plugging that message to allies too. Defense spending has been a thorny subject for NATO members for years, and a persistent source of annoyance and anger for Trump, who was demanding that allies double their spending goals from 2% to 4% of GDP all the way back in 2018. NATO defense expenditure has nevertheless sharply picked up among NATO members since Trump was last in power. Back then, and arguably at the height of the White House leader's irritation with the bloc, only six member states met the 2% target, including the U.S. Times have changed, however; by 2024, 23 members had reached the 2% threshold, according to NATO data. While some greatly surpassed that target — such as Poland, Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece — major economies including Canada, Spain and Italy have lagged below the contribution threshold. No NATO member has so far reached the 5% spending objective, and some are highly likely to drag their feet when it comes to getting to that milestone now. The U.K., Poland and Germany have already said they intend to increase defense spending to the requisite target, but their timeline is unclear. The UK is also reportedly trying to delay the spending rise among by three years, according to the i newspaper. CNBC has reached out to Downing Street for comment. Spain and Italy are seen as major holdouts against the 5% target, after only committing to reach the 2% threshold in 2025. Canada meanwhile spent 1.3% of GDP on defense in 2024, NATO estimates suggest, even less than Italy, Portugal or Montenegro. Spending 5% on defense is a target, but not a given, Jason Israel, senior fellow for the Defense Technology Initiative at CEPA, said Wednesday. "Every single country ... is trying to figure out how they're going to thread that needle of being able to make the commitment, but also make the accounting work when every single nation has to make trade offs against what is generally unpopular, massive increases in defense spending," he noted, stressing it's a "long way from commitments ... to actual capability," European aerospace and defense companies are following NATO spending commentary and commitments closely, but say they're stuck in limbo between pledges and action by way of concrete government procurement. The leaders of Leonardo, Embraer and Saab told CNBC last week the continent needs to act decisively and collectively to make long-term commitments to defense spending and investment contracts to enable companies like theirs to scale-up their production capacity and manufacturing capabilities. "If we go for 3.5% [of pure defense spending] across the European part of NATO, that will mean a lot, and more will be needed in terms of capacity. But we need to understand the capability targets better," Micael Johansson, the chief executive of Swedish defense company Saab, told CNBC. "We can do more, and I think we need to come together in Europe to create more scale, also in what we do to align demand, align requirements, so we can actually be competitive player in internationally. So there's a lot to do still," he said. Roberto Cingolani, CEO of Italian defense firm Leonardo, agreed that "there's a lot of work to be done." "Leonardo has a capacity boost program at the moment because we are quite aware of the fact that we have to increase the production of specific platforms, defense systems, electronics and technology solutions. It is not only matter of money, it's matter of priority. It's matter of reducing the fragmentation among countries in Europe," he told CNBC's Charlotte Reed at the Paris Air Show. Defense companies needed to know what will be expected of them ahead of time, Cingolani said, given the complex nature of global supply chains that underpin the defense industry. "We have approximately 5000 companies in the supply chain, and we are in 160 countries in the world. So it's very complicated," he noted. "You have to invest in supply chain. You have to make investments. You have to protect the supply chain. But of course, we also have to face a shortage of raw materials ... There is no no simple solution. If there were a solution, we would have done it already," he said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Live updates: ‘Fighting Oligarchy' tour brings Bernie Sanders to Fort Worth
Bernie Sanders and his 'Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here' national tour has made targeted stops in deep-red congressional districts held by Republicans. Today's stop? Dickies Arena in Fort Worth. The independent senator from Vermont said his tour highlights the country's move toward authoritarianism and the increasingly large role billionaires and big corporations play on Capitol Hill. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar, a Democrat from Austin, and former U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a Democrat from El Paso, were among those speaking. At least 3,000 North Texans joined labor leaders in chants of 'What kind of power? People power,' as the crowd prepared for the entrance of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders is appearing in Fort Worth just short of 24 hours after President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facility sites. News of the strikes came to Sanders last night while he was onstage at another Fighting Oligarchy rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Sanders did not appear at an earlier event in Amarillo due to security meetings about the strikes, according to Amarillo's KAMR. IAM Union President Brian Bryant, the union representing Fort Worth Lockheed Martin workers, said he is worried the country is headed toward being controlled by an oligarchy, whether citizens realize it or not. He said the issues Sanders is highlighting are ones that resonate with all workers across the United States. 'It's an issue that our members, regardless of what party they affiliate themselves with, they can connect with this because even though they may have voted for the Trump administration, they're sensing that they are being left behind with the legislation he's passing,' Bryant said. 'It's not what they envisioned. It wasn't going to be they thought he was going to be pro-worker. He hasn't done anything that's pro-worker.' Though the union has made efforts to reach out to the Trump administration to raise questions about legislation being passed, Bryant said 'no one's listening.' 'Huge tax breaks for billionaires, and they're not doing anything to help the economy for the working people,' Bryant said. 'None of his executive orders, none of the bills that Congress has passed, they do nothing to go towards the heart of what the issue is that working people are still hurting.' Bryant said he is glad to be representing IAM Union at the Fighting Oligarchy Tour because Sanders is standing up for the workers Trump is leaving behind. 'We aren't just taking punches anymore, we're throwing them too,' Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder said as the crowd erupted in cheers. Scudder said it's high time to flip Texas and start actually representing the people instead of allowing Republicans to 'rig the game.' O'Rourke described a world where workers only have to work one job and money is not being funneled into billionaire's pockets. A world where the president does not stage an 'illegal war' on Iran and where veterans receive the benefits they are promised. 'But to realize this picture, we need action from all of us, and we need it right now,' O'Rourke said. 'If you see a protest, please show up and join it. If you don't see one, start on your own. This stuff is breaking through. It's changing public perception. It's applying political pressure on those in these positions of public trust, and we need more of it.' Casar said Trump's playbook is based on dividing people. 'He would try to play native born workers against immigrant workers, black against white, against Brown, have us fight each other so the rich could get richer.' The only way to beat the playbook every time, Casar said, is to stick together and stand in union. On stage, O'Rourke called out Republicans on the Tarrant County Commissioners Court for their mid-decade redistricting that some residents call racial gerrymandering. He said the act was one that would draw Precinct 2 Commissioner Alisa Simmons out of her seat — something Republicans on the court have been transparent about. O'Rourke told the Star-Telegram that redrawing lines to ensure political gain is human nature and that both parties do it while in power. The only way to fight it, he said, is to vote. 'So you have to guard against human nature, and that requires you know the people, the voters of Tarrant County, rejecting this, and even within newly drawn districts, making sure that there's a political consequence for those who tried to thwart the will of the voters.' As goes Tarrant County, so goes Texas, O'Rourke believes. With none of the 13 conservative-backed candidates winning in Tarrant County municipal elections, O'Rourke said it's a good sign for the midterm elections, but progressive candidates aren't out of the woods yet. He said voters are rejecting fascism and authoritarianism, no matter what political party is associated with it. 'It's just, do you believe in the Constitution? Do you believe in the rule of law? Do you believe that people should be treated with dignity and respect?' O'Rourke said. 'Those are so fundamental and so basic, and I'm so encouraged that so many Americans are responding to these challenges and these choices at school board level, at the city council, at the commissioners court level across the state, in a very, very positive way.' O'Rourke, who lost to Gov. Greg Abbott in 2022 in the race for Texas Governor by about 10 percentage points, said he will stop speaking out politically when the problems Texans are facing solved. 'Everything that I was concerned about as a member of Congress, everything I was concerned about as a candidate, I'm still concerned about today,' O'Rourke said. 'You can't get rid of me, whether I'm a candidate or not, I'm going to be out here doing the work.' At the heart of the issues in America's political climate, Sanders said, is an immense concentration of wealth among a select few corporations and people. 'The bottom line is that today, the people on top have never, ever been better,' Sanders said to the crowd of over 6,500. The Vermont senator recalled sitting at Trump's inauguration earlier this year, where Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos sat near the president. Behind them, he said, were a dozen more billionaires, all of whom are reaping more rewards in U.S. politics than ever before. Trump is not being slick about lining their pockets, Sanders said. 'If you recall, right behind him, plain vision for the world to see, were the three wealthiest people in our country,' Sanders said. Throughout the night, O'Rourke, Casar and Sanders repeatedly decried this weekend's strikes in Iran as a blatantly unconstitutional effort to involve the United States in another 'forever war.' Sanders said the vast majority of Democrats understand what is happening and plan to act against the president. 'Whether you want to go to war in Iran or argue against, it just so happens, the President of the United States doesn't have the authority to do that,' Sanders said. 'Read the Constitution of the United States. It is Congress that has that authority. And I would hope that this week, we will force that resolution, War Powers Act, onto the floor and force people to vote.' Sanders said he doesn't accept states as being solely red or blue, he instead sees hard workers who have the same goals, needs and the same vision. 'This is not Democrat, Republican or independent,' Sanders said. 'I think it is criminal that in the richest country on Earth, we have so much income and wealth inequality that 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. We're the only major country not to guarantee health care to all people. And all of this is related to money in politics.' The bottom line of his tour across America, Sanders said, is that citizens need to get involved politically. 'I would urge people, in any way that they find comfortable, to stand up to the oligarchy,' Sanders said. 'Because what you have now is a small number of people who are incredibly greedy.'
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Why global markets are brushing off U.S. strikes on Iran
The U.S. joining the war between Israel and Iran might seem like a geopolitical flashpoint that would send markets tumbling. Instead, investors are largely shrugging off the escalation, with many strategists believing the conflict to be contained — and even bullish for some risk assets. As of 1 p.m. Singapore time, the MSCI World index, which tracks over a thousand large and mid-cap companies from 23 developed markets, declined only 0.12%. Safe havens are also trading mixed, with the Japanese yen weakening 0.64% against the dollar, while spot gold prices slipped 0.23% to $3,360 per ounce. The dollar index, which measures the U.S. dollar against a basket of currencies, rose 0.35%. In general, the market reactions after the U.S. strikes have been less aggressive, especially relative to just over a week ago when Israel launched airstrikes against Iran. "The markets view the attack on Iran as a relief with the nuclear threat now gone for the region," said Dan Ives, managing director at Wedbush, adding that he sees minimal risks of the Iran-Israel conflict spreading to the rest of the region and consequently more "isolated." While the gravity of the latest developments should not be dismissed, they are not seen as a systemic risk to global markets, other industry experts echoed. On Saturday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that the United States had attacked Iranian nuclear sites. Traders are now keeping a close eye on any potential countermeasures from Iran following the U.S. strikes on its nuclear facilities. Iran's foreign minister warned that his country reserved "all options" to defend its sovereignty. According to Iranian state media, the country's parliament has also approved closing the Strait of Hormuz, a pivotal waterway for global oil trade, with about 20 million barrels of oil and oil products traversing through it each day. "It all depends on how Iran responds," said Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Financial Group. "If they accept the end of their military nuclear desires… then this could be the end of the conflict and markets will be fine," he told CNBC. Boockvar is not of the view that Iran will carry out the disruption of global oil supplies. The worst-case scenario for markets would occur if Iran were to close the Strait, which is unlikely, said Marko Papic, chief strategist at GeoMacro Strategy. "If they do, oil prices go north of $100, fear and panic take over, stocks go down ~10% minimum, and investors rush to safe havens," he said. However, markets are subdued now given the "limited tools" that Tehran has at its disposal to retaliate, Papic added. The idea of shutting down the Hormuz waterway has been a recurring rhetoric from Iran, but it has never been acted upon, with experts highlighting that it is improbable. In 2018, Iran warned it could block the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. pulled out of the nuclear deal and reinstated sanctions. Similar threats were made earlier in 2011 and 2012, when senior Iranian officials — including then-Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi — said the waterway could be closed if Western nations imposed more sanctions on Iran's oil exports due to its nuclear activities. "Tehran understands that, if they were to close the Strait, the retaliation from the U.S. would be swift, punitive, and brutal," Papic added. In a similar vein, Yardeni Research founder Ed Yardeni said the latest events have not shaken his conviction in the U.S. bull market."Geopolitically, we think that Trump has just reestablished America's military deterrence capabilities, thus increasing the credibility of his 'peace through strength' mantra," he said, adding that he is targeting 6,500 for the S&P 500 by the end of 2025. While predicting geopolitical developments in the Middle East is a "treacherous exercise," Yardeni believes that the region is in for a "radical transformation" now that Iranian nuclear facilities have been destroyed.
