LONDON: Washington has four possible courses of action regarding Iran, but all of them are bad for the United States, The Economist wrote ...
LONDON: Washington has four possible courses of action regarding Iran, but all of them are bad for the United States, The Economist wrote in an article.
"To almost everyone else it is clear that America entered this war with a flawed strategy, starting with its failure to anticipate that Iran would close the strait. With the fighting entering a fourth week, Mr Trump has four options for how to proceed. He can talk, leave, continue or escalate. If he has not yet chosen one, it is because none of them are good," the article said.
The Economist writes that the idea of negotiations appears complicated given that on the previous two occasions the United States launched strikes on Iran in the midst of discussions with Tehran. The publication also forecasts difficulties in choosing a mediator and points to the maximalist demands of both sides.
Ending the conflict now and declaring victory would not reduce Washington’s concerns about Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium, nor would it quickly lower energy prices, since control over the Strait of Hormuz would remain entirely in Iran’s hands, the magazine’s analysts believe. In addition, Washington risks damaging relations with its allies in the Persian Gulf, as the United States would have to step back from its key role in the Middle East, which guarantees secure oil flows from the region.
As for the third option — continuing military operations — The Economist believes there are no guarantees these efforts would succeed, as even in its most difficult situation Iran would still be able to strike neighboring countries and block the Strait of Hormuz.
Finally, the article noted that escalation of the conflict is unlikely without some form of ground operation, with all the associated risks. It could also lead to new Iranian strikes on the energy infrastructure of neighboring countries.
-News Feed
COMMENTS