The rapid and conflicting developments in Iranian-American relations bewilder many. However, those who have monitored the dynamics of these relations since the late 1970s fully grasp the substantial reality produced by these interactions. It is clear that as the frequency of verbal exchanges and reciprocal threats increases – at times even veering towards warlike rhetoric, military mobilization, and similar actions – the two parties move closer to a pivotal agreement.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Past experiences in these intricate relations require attention, particularly considering the legacy of negotiation prowess and expertise possessed by Iranian diplomats, irrespective of their identities and professional backgrounds. Hence, it is not surprising to simultaneously observe two phenomena in this matter. The first concerns the reinforcement of the US position.
The second aspect involves the announcement of an agreement regarding the exchange of detained Iranian citizens in the US for American citizens held in Iran. This agreement is also coupled with the release of billions of dollars from Iranian funds.
The detention of vessels takes center stage in the escalating verbal conflict that aligns with the undisclosed negotiations between Tehran and Washington. This situation becomes fully clear when seen in the context of mutual pressures and each party's genuine desire to strengthen their bargaining position. They aim to secure the maximum benefits and concessions from the opposing side. We witnessed this exact scenario unfold in the year leading up to the 2015 nuclear agreement (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).
Negotiations regarding a prisoner exchange arrangement have been ongoing for months, facilitated by various regional and international intermediaries. Both American and Iranian officials have acknowledged these talks.
However, Washington has been attempting to convey that these negotiations are separate from the nuclear matter. In contrast, Iranian statements emphasize a strong interconnectedness among all the topics being discussed between the two parties.
The deployment of over 3,000 American soldiers to the Red Sea aboard two warships, a response to Iran's detainment of oil tankers, aligns with the reinforcement of US military presence in crucial maritime passages for global oil trade. This occurred nearly simultaneously with the initiation of the prisoner exchange arrangement and the release of Iranian funds.
This strategic move carries diverse political implications. Some implications involve pressuring Iran and attempting to quell its political propaganda, which portrays the exchange deal as a crack in the resolve of the US and a victory for Iran.
Others revolve around communicating messages to the American domestic audience, especially within the charged atmosphere of the American political arena due to the trial of former President Donald Trump and the uncertainties surrounding the upcoming presidential elections next year. Against this backdrop, the White House aims to counter those who accuse it of weakness and retreat in the face of Iran, as well as its perceived inability to counter the threats Iran poses to US strategic interests.
The approach, often referred to as the "carrot and stick" strategy, that the US employs to manage these situations remains multi-faceted.
The present administration has now embraced a strategy that diverges from years of relying solely on punitive measures. These actions were often sidelined by President Biden's officials, who previously emphasized diplomacy and resolve. However, there is skepticism about whether this shift will yield results; concrete outcomes may not be easily foreseeable.
This approach could potentially amount to a superficial gesture, intended to demonstrate the White House's commitment to addressing any aggressive behavior from the Iranian regime. The limitations of the US' attempt to exhibit severity in countering Iranian actions stem not only from its delayed implementation but also from Iran's increased boldness and strength, fueled by the current global circumstances. Iran no longer responds to American escalations with the same level of apprehension as before.
The Iranian regime firmly believes that the White House will hesitate significantly before endorsing any decision tied to military retaliation against Iranian actions. As a result, Tehran demonstrated no reservation in announcing the supply of unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles with a range of up to one thousand kilometers to the Revolutionary Guard fleet. Simultaneously, it issued a cautionary statement to Washington, advising them to be ready for the consequences of any escalation against Iran.
The deployment of over 3,000 American soldiers and the reinforcement of the US military presence near critical maritime passages within the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz come in the wake of several instances over the past two years where Iran detained or attempted to seize around 20 vessels flying international flags in that region, as reported by US military records. This serves as the underlying justification for the recent military build-up.
However, this very rationale prompts questions about what triggered a change in the American approach. This becomes particularly pertinent when considering the unfavorable timing for any escalation against Iran, given the ongoing engagement of the US and its Western allies in the Ukraine conflict with Russia. Additionally, the upcoming US presidential elections loom close, and President Biden aims to avoid sparking new crises that could hinder his chances of securing reelection for a second term.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
In my analysis, the primary message underscored by the recent American move is an attempt to assure Middle Eastern allies of Washington that any agreement reached between the US and Iran will not hinder the response to potential Iranian military threats related to navigational freedom, regional security, and stability.
This takes on added importance in light of the prevailing perception that Washington's statements frequently do not materialize into tangible measures when it comes to addressing Iranian threats and fulfilling partnership obligations with allies. As a result, a lingering question persists: To what extent will these allies, including the Gulf Cooperation Council nations and Israel, be convinced that the US remains a trustworthy ally on which they can truly rely?
