Trending
With the U.S. and Iran having traded attacks and skirmished over who controls the Strait of Hormuz, a 60-day ceasefire lies in tatters. Both would be wiser to refrain from further escalation and remember why they need that final agreement.
The recent bout of violence flared up when Iranian forces struck several commercial vessels heeding U.S. encouragement to hug the coast of Oman as they transited the strait rather than seek authorization to sail through Iranian waters.
The U.S. retaliated by reimposing oil sanctions, blockading Iranian ports and launching barrages of deadly airstrikes. Iran responded with attacks on U.S. military facilities in the region, which have killed at least three U.S. service members. The White House is reportedly considering options to expand its campaign, including by deploying ground troops.
The motivations driving both sides seem clear. Iran sees administrative control over the critical waterway as a key point of leverage and deterrence. For the same reason, the U.S. and its allies in the Persian Gulf are loath to cede even symbolic control. Whether by design or incompetence, the ceasefire agreement left the issue vague. In theory, the sides could've exploited that ambiguity as cover to pursue a broader rapprochement; instead, they have used force to assert their interpretation of what's been agreed.
Iran may have fired the first shot this time. But the White House needs to recognize that its blunders led to this predicament. The war launched at the end of February has been an unmitigated failure. The U.S. has spent tens of billions of dollars, depleted critical munitions, disrupted the global economy and sacrificed the lives of at least 17 service members without bringing a deal to contain the Iranian nuclear program measurably closer. The administration would've been wiser to cut its losses sooner; there's no reason to believe a return to full-scale fighting will yield better results.
Before anything else, the U.S. needs to decide what its strategic goals are. The first priority remains a nuclear deal. While the details will require hard bargaining, the broad outlines are clear: removal or down-blending of Iran's near-weapons-grade uranium, limits on enrichment and intrusive international inspections.
Meanwhile, rather than threatening to charge Gulf allies for U.S. military support, the administration ought to be assembling a broad coalition to make clear that extortionate tolls won't be tolerated -- and that any attempt to impose them will only deepen Iran's isolation.
For its part, the Iranian regime shouldn't mistake survival for victory. The economy is a shambles; as much as 40% of the population may be living in poverty. The huge crowds that turned out for slain Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's funeral can't disguise the fact that most Iranians still loathe their government. In striving so hard to prove it won the war, the regime risks losing the peace.
Any deal isn't likely to end the decades-long rivalry between the U.S. and Iran. For both nations, though, it would be far preferable to open war. They should get back to forging one.