America’s Dilemma with Iran

The Iranian regime must demand accountability for the death of Palestinian leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed by a short-range missile in the nation’s capital. For the last 45 years, Iran has kept the population in check by asserting “Death to Israel.” If Iran does not respond to adversaries who have infiltrated its home turf with a show of force that will satisfy its citizens and send a message to rival Arab regimes, it could embolden the opposition forces suppressed within Iran, or even spell the end of the mullahs’ rule.

To put it briefly, Iran must deliver a striking and surprise response. This has nothing to do with supporting Palestine or revenge for Ismail Haniyeh. The Iranian regime now needs to preserve its dignity. This response won’t be easy, even for an administration that, in the name of self-preservation, overlooks the woes of millions in Syria and Iraq but refuses to tolerate the smallest hint of dissent at home. This is Iran’s dilemma.

But America’s quandary goes deeper. Since the 1970s, the U.S. has based its Middle East policy on the premise that the region’s Sunni Muslim states and movements are a threat to Israel’s existence. This policy took on a new dimension following the Palestine Liberation Organization’s expulsion from Lebanon with the billions of dollars in military aid that Israel provided to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Israeli strikes on Iraqi nuclear facilities, carried out with support from Iranian intelligence, further confirmed American policy in the region.

This approach continued until the the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan and culminated with massive destruction in Iraq during the 2003 war. By choosing not to interfere in the Houthi takeover in Yemen and turning a blind eye to Bashar Assad’s chemical attacks in Syria, the U.S. has elected to play the role of sectarian conflict instigator in the region. It has also supported revolution in Egypt to lessen threats to Israel’s west, and worked to increase turmoil in Syria and Lebanon in hopes of securing Israel’s north.

Iraq’s fragmentation and the brutal civil war in Syria strengthened Israel’s hand, but also increased Iran’s influence in those countries, just as the eviction of the PLO from Lebanon increased Hezbollah’s authority instead of boosting Christian dominance.

This is where the impasse starts for the U.S. Every action taken to weaken the Iran-controlled Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq or the Houthis in Yemen strengthens the opposition within these countries.

The U.S. must also steer clear of assaults that could embolden Turkish-backed opposition in Syria, Sunnis in Lebanon or the anti-Iranian Yemeni government. This is because each move made to produce such an effect would have repercussions elsewhere in the region. Actions that would clear a path for the Syrian opposition or trigger the return of Sunni Muslims to the Iraqi political scene could impact the coup regime in Egypt and the monarchy in Jordan. Such a situation opens the door to an irreparable defeat for the U.S. and Israel.

This may be why we’re hearing about deployment of a U.S. delegation to Iran. The U.S. will ask Iran to scale down its characterization of Haniyeh’s assassination to a “symbolic attack” that won’t do excessive harm to Israel, America’s spoiled child, to avoid having Israel respond to Iran more harshly.

This is the movie we’ll be watching soon.