Robert Malley on Iran

May 30, 2023

Robert MalleyBefore his appointment as Special Envoy for Iran, Robert Malley criticized the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran as ineffective. “Sanctions devastated Iran’s economy but achieved little else,” he wrote in Foreign Policy in December 2020. “Throughout Trump’s presidency, Iran’s nuclear program grew, increasingly unconstrained by the JCPOA. Tehran has more accurate ballistic missiles than ever before and more of them.” 

Malley’s appointment was confirmed by the White House and the State Department on January 29, 2021. Malley brings “a track record of success negotiating constraints on Iran's nuclear program,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said.

Malley served in the Obama administration as Special Assistant to the President, Senior Adviser to the President for the Counter-ISIS Campaign, and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region. Malley was a key member of the negotiating team that brokered the 2015 nuclear deal. From 2018 to 2021, Malley was president of the International Crisis Group. The following are past remarks by Malley on Iran.  

 

After taking office:

On Iran’s nuclear program and diplomacy 

In an interview with NPR on May 30, 2023:

Question: “How close is Iran to a bomb?”

Malley: “The answer to that question is in two parts. First is the question of enrichment of uranium. And we know - we've said publicly that they're only a couple of weeks away from having enough - if they decided to enrich uranium to weapons-grade, they'd be very close to having enough for one bomb.”

“Our intelligence community has made the assessment public that we believe that at this point, they have not made the decision to pursue a bomb. We're not going to rest on that assessment. And that's why it's very important for us and President Biden has made clear that we will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. We will use deterrence to make clear to them that all options are on the table if we conclude that they're taking steps that are tantamount to a decision to acquire bomb. But we also will pursue diplomacy because we think that's the most verifiable and sustainable way to prevent them from getting a bomb.”

Question: “When you say all stops necessary, when you say Iran must not be allowed to get a bomb, what, if anything, at this point can the U.S. actually do about it?”

Malley: “Our preference is a diplomatic option. I think it's been proven to be the most effective way and the most sustainable way to make sure that Iran doesn't acquire a bomb. And we have a credible diplomatic path, but we also have a credible deterrence path. In other words, the president has said all options are on the table. You could imagine what that means. He has said explicitly that the military option will be on the table. It is far from the preferred option, but he will do what it takes to make sure Iran doesn't acquire a bomb. And we hope that we could resolve this through diplomatic means, and we're prepared to go down that path.”

“They could continue on the current path, which has brought real economic problems for them. We will not be lifting our sanctions as long as we can't enter into another nuclear deal. If they believe that they're better off with that one, that will be their choice.”

In remarks on March 21, 2023: “This past year has been a difficult one for so many Iranians. As families gather to mark Nowruz, there are far too many chairs left empty by sisters and brothers, daughters and sons, mothers and fathers who have been killed or detained by the regime for the simple act of exercising their inalienable rights.

“You are the ones who will write this page in Iran’s history. But you should know that you are not alone. You should know how inspired we are by your bravery, how determined we are to listen to and amplify your voices, how dedicated we are to ensuring that you have access to the internet—even when your rulers seek to deny it, and how committed we are on our own and together with so many across the globe to hold to account those perpetrating human rights abuses.

“It has been a difficult year, yes. But also a year of unspeakable courage, of remarkable resilience, and of hope. Hope that even given Iran’s long and illustrious past, the best days for its people lie in its tomorrows.

“On behalf of the United States, I wish you peace and prosperity in the new year and hope for a better future.”

In remarks posted on Twitter on Jan. 31, 2023: “I can’t recall a case of a human rights crisis where the President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Head of the CIA, everyone has spoken as frequently and loudly about what’s happening in Iran.

“Can’t remember a case where we moved so quickly to adjust our sanctions to allow Iranians to circumvent the ‘wall of silence’ that the Iranian regime has tried to impose by allowing them access to the internet to communicate with each other and with the outside world.

“And I can’t recall a case where we mobilized the international community so quickly … [We got] Iran expelled from the Commission on the Status of Women, an unprecedented step.”

 

In remarks posted on Twitter on Jan. 31, 2023: “When President Biden came into office, Europe spent as much time criticizing the US as it did criticizing Iran because of the positions that the Trump Administration took.

Today we are united with Europe on … every aspect of our policy towards Iran. And that’s very important and that is a message that Iran is now hearing loud and clear from us, from Brussels, from Paris, from London. It is the same message about the support for Russia, about the oppression of their people, about their nuclear program.”

 

In an interview with the BBC aired on Jan. 30, 2023: “[President Biden] never said that the possibility of an understanding with Iran was dead. In fact, we have said the exact opposite time and time again.”

“We could play with words about what exactly is dead or not.”

“I’ve been charged by the President to seek a diplomatic outcome. That’s still what I’m doing even as we take other steps…I don’t think anyone can doubt the military capacity of the United States…It’s not our first option…It’s a very dangerous option. It’s not one that… President Biden would engage in cavalierly. He would do it if necessary.”

“Iran is going to have to make a choice…whether it wants to continue to go down this path of greater isolation, greater pressure, more sanctions, no economic opportunity, or whether it chooses another one.”

“What we’re asking for is very simply for Iran to come back into compliance with its non-proliferation obligations and to stop supporting Russia in a war of aggression.”

In an interview with MSNBC on Feb. 4, 2022: 

Malley: So I think no U.S. official that I know has said that there's no point in coming back into the deal, given this information. To the contrary, what we've heard so far, all the advances that Iran has made has just bolstered the case for getting back into the deal because we’ve lived the alternative for the last several years, we've seen what happens to Iran's nuclear program. If we're not in the deal, Iran is unconstrained in its nuclear advances, and that's why we see that as of today, they are only a few weeks away from enough enriched uranium for a bomb. Now the point you made about, you know, because of the advances that they've made over the years, over the years since we withdrew from the deal, that it's going to be hard to recapture the full nonproliferation benefits, the full breakout timeline that was achieved in 2015, 2016, that's obviously one of the many catastrophic consequences of the decision to leave the deal. 

But our experts say as of today, and that's the position of President Biden, that’s the position of Secretary Blinken and all the rest of the team, is that as of today, it is still well worth getting back into the deal. There's much still that can be salvaged, not for much longer, but as of today, our view is getting back into the deal will be profoundly our national security interests, profoundly in our interests to avoid seeing Iran advance towards a bomb, and avoiding more tension and more another conflagration in the Middle East. So as of today, it is clearly the U.S. position. It is still worth going into the deal, but what we've said very openly to Iran is that that won't be the case much longer, which is why we say we only have a few more weeks to go at the current pace of Iran's nuclear advances for it to get back into the deal. Or unfortunately, we're all going to face a very different reality. 

Ayman Mohyeldin: I am sure that you have seen some of the comments made on Capitol Hill this week. Senator Bob Menendez questioned the point of rejoining the deal, as you were just making the case for it. Let me just play for you the sound bite on what he had to say about your perspective of the deal, watch this: 

Menendez (video clip): To quote again, Rob Malley, the president's Iran negotiator, “Trying to revive the deal at this point would be quote tantamount to trying to revive a dead corpse.” 

Mohyeldin: All right, so I mean, according to him and that specific quote that he used of you, he's trying to make you sound pretty hopeless. Obviously, that is not the case, you know, and Senator Menendez’s visual aid this week, it seemed that it was reminding me of a similar one 10 years ago with Netanyahu at the U.N.. But what do you say to Bob Menendez there and him using your quote? 

Malley: Well, we have a lot of, obviously the administration has a lot of respect and has worked very closely with Chairman Menendez on all issues. We know he was an opponent of the JCPOA and we respect that view and we continue to talk to him about it. What I said in the quote was that at this pace, if we continue, we will soon reach the point where trying to revive the JCPOA would be tantamount to reviving a dead course.

President Biden still wants us to negotiate in Vienna, we’re going back next week. That's a signal or a sign of our continued belief that it is not a dead corpse, that we need to revive it because it is in our interest. It's the best way we have to put Iran's nuclear program back in a box and to make sure that we can put that problem to the side, as we do with so many other issues that Iran presents to us. So, no, it's not yet. We haven't reached that point, but I think it's very clear that if we don't reach a deal soon, that point will have been reached and then we'll have to think of other ways to address Iran's nuclear program. But as of today, it's our view. It's a view of our European partners. The best way forward is to try to get back into the deal if Iran is prepared to do its share and come back into full compliance with its obligations. 

Mohyeldin: Let me play for you another clip, if I can, from the U.N. General Assembly last fall, it’s the Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. And he had this to say about Iran's nuclear capability at the time.  

Naftali Bennett (video clip): Iran's nuclear program has hit a watershed moment. And so has our tolerance. Words do not stop centrifuges from spinning. 

Mohyeldin: Words don't stop centrifuges. But military action, would that stop the centrifuges? I mean, we know the Israelis have asked the Americans to join in military exercises. Is war something that you are preparing for if diplomacy fails? 

Malley: So again, we work very closely with the Israeli government. We're very transparent with what we're doing. We do have a disagreement on this issue, but our belief is not that words are going to stop Iran's nuclear program. It’s that the JCPOA, the deal, the agreement that we reached, proved that it stopped it and it can stop it again. And we've again, we’ve lived the alternative. This is not a counterfactual. This is an experiment that we lived for three years without a deal. We saw what happened to Iran's nuclear program, and the maximum pressure campaign did the opposite of stopping Iran's nuclear program. Iran's nuclear program accelerated.

Now our priority is to get back into the deal if Iran is prepared to do so, and we're prepared to do our share and lift those sanctions that were reimposed by President Trump and that are inconsistent with the deal. If Iran chooses a different path, of course, we're prepared and we'll use the tools that we have to put pressure on Iran to make sure that they can't acquire a bomb, which is a commitment that President Biden has made, keeping the door open for diplomacy, but using other tools at our disposal to make sure that Iran can't move towards acquiring a bomb. So that's going to be our policy. That is our policy, we’ll work with all our partners to achieve it. 

We have differences with Israel, but we're working hand in glove with them to make sure that our common interests are defended, even if we have this difference of views about the wisdom of getting back into the JCPOA. But I would note Ayman, and I'm sure you've noted as well, that over the last several weeks we've had, almost every day, former senior Israeli officials come out and say, including those who were in favor of the decision to withdraw from the deal when it was made in 2018. Today, they're saying it was a catastrophic decision. One of the costliest decisions that was made for Israel's security because today they face an Iran that is only weeks away from having enough fissile material for a bomb. Whereas with the JCPOA, they were months and months away from that threshold. So I think that recognition is something that is sobering and that we hope others will listen to as well. 

Mohyeldin: So let's look at it from a slightly different perspective, and that is from the Iranian perspective for a moment because they're the other side of this equation, and from their end, they have no reason to trust the United States. We tore up the deal, violated the pact by imposing more sanctions against them. We assassinated their top military general. What reason do you think they have to trust us? I mean, to believe any deal will even last beyond this administration? If you were Iranian, would you trust anything the U.S. is offering? 

Malley: So I'm not going to put myself in their shoes, but I'll say this, which again, is what we've conveyed to them. It is true in our system, we cannot bind the future presidents. That's a decision that whoever comes into the Oval Office in the future will have to make. What we do say is President Biden has made clear that he will stay in compliance with the deal, the U.S. will stay in compliance with the deal, as long as Iran is in compliance. He would not be expending this political capital on trying to get back into the deal if the point was to then leave it. Now, let’s get back into the deal as soon as possible, let’s show that it brings benefits both to the United States and to Iran, and then let’s try to build on it to reach other understandings which will make it even stronger, make it have more bipartisan support here, more regional support in the Middle East. So we’ve never said that the JCPOA is the end of diplomacy. 

To the contrary, we’ve always said it’s a necessary step so that we would lift some sanctions and Iran would come back into compliance with its obligations so we would no longer worry for now about Iran’s nuclear program. But, we’ve said we should build on it, and that’s clearly our view, and we think Iran should also have an interest in addressing other issues that have not been addressed by the JCPOA. So that’s, you know, we can’t make a promise that we can’t hold, and President Biden won’t make it, I won’t make it. We’re not going to tell Iran that once we get into the deal, no president can tear it up. A future president could do that. We don't intend to if Iran is consistent in compliance with its obligations, and our hope is that we could show that this is a deal that is in our mutual benefit, which is the best way to ensure that it is sustainable and to build on it and to strengthen it. 

Mohyeldin: OK, so the Iranians were, they were compliant with the deal by everyone's assessment. And you suggested that the U.S. and Iran should step back both into the deal at the same time and go from there. My question is, the US left the deal first. Why not be the first to rejoin? Why not say we are going to go back into this deal, no conditions, and we will pick it up from the point where we as a country broke our promises the first time?

Malley: So first of all, I mean the sequence who goes exactly first and second, that's not really the issue, but if what you're suggesting is that the U.S. should just go back in and then hope that Iran will follow suit, I think that 10 months of negotiation proves that this is not simply a light switch. We have different views about what it means for the U.S. to be back in compliance. They want us to lift all of the sanctions that President Trump imposed, and we say some of them he imposed because of Iran's behavior that has nothing to do with the nuclear deal. And so those we intend to maintain, even though a majority we would lift. 

But likewise, we have requirements for what it would mean for Iran to come back into compliance with the deal, which we haven't settled on yet. We haven't agreed with them yet, so we can take a step and say we're back in. They would challenge that we're back in. They may not take the steps that are required. It's complicated. Again, it's one of the legacies that we have to deal with from the prior administration, but it's not as easy as some people think it is, which is us going back in and hoping that Iran will follow suit because we have to agree: what does it mean for the U.S. to be back in compliance? What does it mean for Iran to be back in compliance? 

Mohyeldin: What do you say to people who say, why can't we live with a nuclear Iran? We live with nuclear countries. They are a rational actor. I mean, the U.S. concludes that Iran is a rational actor. They're about self-preservation. What would you say to someone that says Iran wants a nuclear weapon, even though they don't, even know they've made clear they do not want it? And I understand it's about trust, but at the same time, why wouldn't we be able to live with a nuclear Iran the same way we live with nuclear North Korea or Pakistan or other countries? 

Malley: The notion of a nuclear arms race in the region, a region that has already suffered so much instability and which has cost us, the United States, in so many ways, I think that's something we should not even contemplate. Iran has shown in its behavior across the region that it has engaged in destabilizing activities in Iran. Armed with a nuclear weapon, could do even worse, it’s a commitment that President Biden and former presidents have made, that they will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb, and that's not about to change. 


 

 

 

 

 

Interview with NPR on Apr. 6, 2021: "We'll work as closely as we can with Congress. And this is a very polarizing issue. We understand that. At the same time we've stated clearly it was what the president ran on — that we would come back into the deal if Iran resumed compliance and then work on it to achieve what I think every member of Congress has said he or she wants to achieve, which is a stronger, longer deal that meets U.S. core interests. But also would have to include further steps that Iran is looking for. And doing this in coordination with our regional allies, our regional partners."

"What we would pursue is, first of all, a longer agreement. Even though this one lasts quite some time and some of its provisions last forever, of course, it would be better, as in any arms control agreement, to see whether we could get a follow-on deal that extends the timelines...And, you know, we have concerns about Iran's ballistic missile program. We have concerns about their activities in the region. We want to talk about all that. But we're much better off talking about all of that if we could at least put the current nuclear issue to the side and not have to worry every day about what the latest Iranian announcement will be."

"We will negotiate with whoever is in power in Iran. And if we could reach an understanding before the elections, fine. And if we can't, we'll continue after that with whoever is in office in Tehran. So we can't ignore the reality of an election, but we can't let it dictate our pace either."

Interview with PBS on Apr. 2, 2021: "The goal is to see whether we can agree on what steps the United States needs to take to come back into compliance with the nuclear deal and what steps Iran has to take to come back into compliance with the nuclear deal. It's been many years since the United States has had that kind of engagement with Iran. It's going to be indirect. But we have seen the product of several years in which the Trump administration had tried to impose maximum pressure on Iran, withdrawing from the deal, trying to get Iran to surrender and to agree to better terms."

"This is just the first step. It's going to be a difficult, arduous path because of how much time has gone by and how much mutual distrust there is. But our goal is to discuss indirectly with our European and other partners who have internal discussions with Iran to see whether we could define those steps that both sides are going to have to take. If they're serious about coming back into compliance with the deal, we're serious. President Biden said it during the campaign and since that the United States is prepared for a mutual return back into compliance."

"If we're realistic about what both sides have to do, if we engage in this with a realistic and constructive frame of mind, we could get there. But if either side takes a maximalist position, and says that the other side has to do everything first before it's going to move one inch, I think it's hard to see how this succeeds."

"We understand that there's an election coming up. And we know that Iran is very well aware of it. But our goal is to get to a correct return to the JCPOA, to the nuclear deal. And that's — and we will follow that pace in a very determined way. But we're not going to cut corners if we can't get a proper understanding before that time."

Interview with BBC Persian on Mar. 17, 2021: "If Iran is prepared to come back into compliance, so is the U.S. We could play games about who goes first. I think anyone who's dealt with this knows that neither side is going to go first entirely. There's going to have to be some agreement on choreographing, on synchronizing. We're open to discussing that. But it's going to have to be discussed. It's not going to happen simply unilaterally by one side taking all the steps and waiting then to see whether the other one reciprocates."

"I'm not saying that the shape of the Iranian government has no consequences just as the shape of the U.S. government has consequence. Of course. What we're saying is we're not going to try to slow down the pace in order to see who comes next. And we're not going to try to accelerate it against what we think should be a rigorous reentry into the deal and cut corners because we're going to rush this for the sake of meeting an electoral deadline. We want to work as fast as we can, consistent with getting things right for us. Of course, Iran will want to get things right for itself. So that's what's dictating our pace. How Iran decides its own political future, we'll leave to them."

Interview with Voice of America Persian on Mar. 17, 2021: "We're not dragging our feet. We're prepared to meet and so far we're waiting for the Iranians to be able to tell us how they want to discuss this. It's not going to happen with the U.S. unilaterally taking these steps. We want to talk about it. We want to come back into compliance if Iran comes into compliance. And we hope that that could happen soon. If Iran thinks that if, as you're suggesting, these are tactics aimed at speeding things up, it's hard to see how that's going to work. It's not really helping the climate in the U.S. to have Iranian allies take shots at Americans in Iraq or elsewhere. And the U.S. will respond as it has responded and it will continue to respond. But our goal is to see a de-escalation of tensions in the region and to see both Iran and the United States back into compliance with their obligations, their commitments under the nuclear deal. And we hope that that could happen as soon as possible."

"We're going to do everything we can to push for respect for human rights in Iran and elsewhere and for the release of Americans who are unjustly detained and for the return of and for closure of those who are missing like Bob Levinson. So that's going to be a priority. This is not something that you sign an agreement and that's enough. What you need to do is push and make sure that there's pressure and make sure that the Iranian people themselves know that the United States is standing with them in that fight."

Interview with Axios on Mar. 10, 2021: "We don’t intend to base the pace of our discussions on the Iranian elections — the pace will be determined by how far we can get consistent with defending U.S. national security interests...In other words, we won’t rush or slow things because of the Iranian elections."

"Our view is that direct talks are more effective and less prone to misunderstanding, but for us the substance is more important than the format."

 

On negotiating a prisoner swap with Iran

At an event hosted by Hostage Aid on July 6, 2021: "We're saying [to the Iranians] all of them [American detainees] have to come home. We don't want to do a partial deal. We don't want to leave anyone behind. Again, I know how painful that was last time and don't want to relive history."

"We've made some progress. We're not there yet." 

"The Iranians are — I can't think of any other word other than being extortionist in this regard and trying to get as much as they can."

NPR Interview on May 2, 2021:

Question: "In Iran - Emad Shargi, Siamak and Baquer Namazi, Morad Tahbaz. Do you bring up these names in the passing of notes with the Iranians?"

Malley: "I've mentioned Baquer Namazi, Siamak's father. We bring them up at every single round of talks. And even when we're not in Vienna, it's absolute priority for all of us to get them out. And to be honest, we shouldn't have to negotiate or discuss this. They were detained as political pawns. They are being detained for absolutely no good reason. They've done nothing wrong other than being Iranian Americans who happened to be in Iran at the wrong time - wrong time from Iran's point of view. They should be released tomorrow, yesterday, months ago, years ago, unconditionally. We know that's not how this system, this government operates. And that's unspeakable."

 

Interview with PBS on Apr. 2, 2021: "We have American detainees unjustly detained in Iran. We can't forget them. And anything that happens on the nuclear side, whether we succeed or fail, our goal is going to be to get them back home."

 

Before taking office:

On Iran’s nuclear program and future diplomacy 

Article in Foreign Policy on Dec. 29, 2020: “Biden has signaled that he will shift course, agree to rejoin the JCPOA if Iran resumes compliance, and then seek to negotiate a follow-on deal tackling ballistic missiles and regional policy. Tehran has signaled that it, too, is prepared for a mutual adherence to the existing nuclear deal. That seems the safest and swiftest bet, although even then obstacles will abound. The U.S. and Iranian governments will need to agree on a sequencing of steps between sanctions relief and nuclear restraints and also on which sanctions should be lifted. The window could be short, with presidential elections in Iran scheduled for June and a more hard-line candidate predicted to win.

“But if they return to the JCPOA, the larger challenge will be to address the regional tensions and polarization that, left to fester, will continue to jeopardize the deal and could trigger conflict. European governments are exploring the possibility of prompting Iran and Gulf Arab states to engage in a dialogue to reduce regional tensions and prevent an inadvertent outbreak of war; the Biden administration could put its full diplomatic weight behind such an effort.”

 

Iranian threat to the Middle East and U.S. interests

Interview with World Politics Review on Oct. 5, 2020: “I think if you take a look back at where Iran has been most influential, it’s rarely been as a result of its great strategic wisdom or its great strength. If you look at the defense budgets of Iran compared to the defense budgets of the Gulf Cooperation Council, it’s about 10-to-1 in favor of Saudi Arabia and its allies. If you look at the financial weight of Iran compared to that of its rivals, there’s no comparison. I think where Iran has done well is in exploiting the mistakes and the dysfunctionalities of others. And we could go through it almost case by case.

“You mentioned Iraq. Iran would not have the influence it has in Iraq today had it not been for the ill-conceived, tragic decision by the Bush administration to invade and occupy Iraq. Iran would not have the influence it has in Lebanon today had it not been for Israel’s invasion back in the 1980s of Lebanon, which led to resentment toward Israel and the birth of Hezbollah, which has been the most successful Iranian investment since the revolution. Iran would not have the influence in Yemen that it has today had it not been for the war between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis. And even in the case of Syria—and there, of course, responsibility is widely shared, and most of it must be put on the shoulders of the Bashar al-Assad regime—but if it hadn’t been for the fact that this regime has been embattled and that you’ve had an intervention by other countries to support the opposition, which led Assad to have to turn evermore desperately to Iran, Iran would not be as entrenched in Syria as it is today.”

Essay in Foreign Affairs in Nov/Dec 2019: “Iran has also chosen to treat the region as its canvas. Besides chipping away at its own compliance with the nuclear deal, it has seized tankers in the Gulf; shot down a U.S. drone; and, if U.S. claims are to be believed, used Shiite militias to threaten Americans in Iraq, attacked commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, and struck Saudi oil fields. In June of this year, when the drone came down and Trump contemplated military retaliation, Iran was quick to warn Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE that they would be fair game if they played any role in enabling a U.S. attack. (There is no reason to trust that the domino effect would have ended there; Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and Syria could well have been drawn into the ensuing hostilities.) And in Yemen, the Houthis have intensified their attacks on Saudi targets, which may or may not be at Iran’s instigation—although, at a minimum, it is almost certainly not over Tehran’s objections.”

Interview with NPR on Nov. 22, 2020: “And the more you try to marginalize the Houthis [in Yemen], the more you send them the signal that they're not going to be welcomed to the table, the harder you make it to resolve the conflict, and, in fact, the more you push the Houthis into Iranian arms. So it's not just a counterproductive policy in terms of what it's leaving to Joe Biden. It's counterproductive in terms of U.S. interests in terms of reaching a settlement, diminishing Iranian influence and avoiding famine.”

 

Iranian regime stability

Interview with World Politics Review on Oct. 5, 2020: “Iran has been under great pressure in the past, and there’s no evidence that the regime is about to collapse.”

“Again, I’m not foolhardy enough to make a prediction that it won’t at some point. Regimes like the Iranian regime have a lifespan. They don’t go on forever. But if and when it falls, in my view, it won’t be because the U.S. has turned the screws more on its economy. It will be because of the internal contradictions of a regime that is not viewed as representative and not viewed as able to respond to the needs of its people. But it’s not going to be because of some external intervention.”

Article in Foreign Policy on Dec. 29, 2020: “Sanctions devastated Iran’s economy but achieved little else. Throughout Trump’s presidency, Iran’s nuclear program grew, increasingly unconstrained by the JCPOA. Tehran has more accurate ballistic missiles than ever before and more of them. The regional picture grew more, not less, fraught, with incidents—from Suleimani’s killing on Iraqi soil to attacks on Saudi energy industry targets widely attributed to Tehran—triggering multiple brushes with open war. Nothing suggests that the Iranian government, despite periodic outbursts of popular discontent, is in danger of collapse.”

 

U.S. killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani

Quoted in Foreign Policy on Jan. 2, 2020: “A president who vowed to keep the United States out of another Middle Eastern war has in effect just issued a declaration of war. A strike that the administration claims was intended to deter Iranian attacks is almost certain to trigger far more of them. Qasem Soleimani’s death is undoubtedly a very serious blow to Iran. But it also is a very serious blow to any hope for regional de-escalation.”

Commentary for International Crisis Group on Jan. 3, 2020: “With his decision, President Donald Trump is making clear that he abides by a different calculus: that, given the vast power imbalance, Iran has far more to fear from war than does the U.S. The strike that killed the Iranian general along with others – notably Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a senior commander of the pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiite militia – was, in accordance with this view, meant as a deterrent to further Iranian attacks.

“It is almost certain to be anything but. Iran may fear U.S. retaliation, but it fears projecting that fear even more. From its perspective, it cannot allow what it views as a declaration of war to remain unanswered.”

“The U.S.-Iranian game has changed. Their rivalry for the most part played out as an attritional standoff: Washington laying siege to Iran’s economy in hopes that financial duress would lead either to its government’s capitulation to U.S. demands or to its ouster; and Tehran responding with actions that maintained a veneer of plausible deniability. Targeting Soleimani is liable to mark a shift from attrition toward open confrontation.”

 

Some of the information in this article was originally published on February 2, 2021.