What Drives Iran?

Is it pride and ethics?

The Islamic Republic tasted victory; it survived a joint onslaught from two powerful nations, exhausted their capabilities, and had Trump fawning for relief and willing to agree to most demands, including relief from sanctions and release of seized assets. The Mullahs were on a new footing, no longer a pariah of the west, but a powerful nation prepared to carry forward the legacy of its renowned ancestors. Not enough; Iran wants it all, and not just military and economic victories. it wants moral victory, applied justice, and recognized sovereignty. It will not allow its pride tarnished or its ethics diminished. Iran wants “Sam” to say “uncle.” Trump is willing to say. “Pretty please, can’t we get this war ended?”

The forlorn looking Trump is ready to accept a quiet ending to a disquieting aggression. Iran exhibits an opposing scenario, loudly proclaiming that, “the US must permanently end its war and naval blockade against Iran, withdraw military forces from the region, fully compensate Iran for damages from the war, lift sanctions, and unfreeze assets abroad.” Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr also demanded, “an end to Israel’s attacks on Palestinians and a withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, as well as an end to US and Israeli attacks against the Houthis in Yemen.“ Is all this possible? Would be nice, but I doubt it.

What drives Iran? Is it asking too much, and by not settling for “good enough,” leading itself and the world into an endless conflagration? Methinks so! Permanently ending anything is equivalent to death, compensating for damages is admitting war crimes, and withdrawing forces from the region is not what the Gulf states want. Why ask the impossible to gain a moral victory when you have been ceded the possible that gives military, political, and economic victory?

The Islamic Republic has earned world admiration and respect; two adjectives that its detractors have consistently refused to apply to the ever-struggling nation. It is now recognized that the Iranian nation we saw is not the Iranian nation that is, not quite what we have been told. The Iranian regime is repressive, but not without cause. Treason and espionage led to the war waged against its people, originating from knowing the coordinates of its strategic defenses and the behavior of its government officials, and the treason resulted in the extermination of its entire government. Fear of treason and espionage have caused paranoia in the Mullahs from the moment Ayatollah Khomeini stepped off the plane in Tehran. Believing they represent the aspirations of the downtrodden, the regime has acted vigorously to smother any attempt to challenge their authority, seeing sinister and imperialist forces behind every demonstration that contradicts its convictions. Khomeini’s reign was a brutal reign of terror, a 20^th century version of Robespierre’s Committee of Public Safety. His death greatly diminished the repression, but has not brought its extinction.

The war against Iran sallied forward Trumpfully, eagerly waiting for the revolutionary forces to unite and take up arms against the embattled regime. The opposite occurred ─ the Iranian people quietly acquiesced to the government’s pursuit of the war, enduring the hardships, and ready to sacrifice themselves to Trump’s threats of total destruction. The Iranian officials can smile; instead, they are unduly grimacing. Their objectives of having almost absolute control of ship movements in the Strait of Hormuz is illegal, alienates those they want to befriend, and provides meager benefits to their operations.

The Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), first established in 1968 by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), organized traffic in the Strait of Hormuz into “an inbound lane (managed primarily through Iranian waters) and an outbound lane (primarily through Omani waters). Each lane is 2 miles wide and separated by a 2-mile buffer zone to prevent head-on collisions.” The TSS has worked successfully for the last 58 years. Iran wants increased direct management, and has engaged Oman to devise a plan that is acceptable to both of them.

Oman replied with a plan where “Iran and Oman would cooperate in managing safe passage rather than leaving control of shipping movements predominantly in the hands of either side.” Similar to the TSS, Oman’s proposed routes are divided equally between Iranian and Omani territorial waters, with vessels entering the Gulf through the Iranian side and leaving through the Omani side. Shipping companies would pay voluntary fees, which has a precedent in arrangements used to support navigational safety in the Strait of Malacca.

Iran rejected Oman’s proposed equal division of the territorial waters. Its Deputy Foreign Minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said that, “Tehran wants to manage the shipping route on its side of the strait while Oman will oversee only part, rather than all, of the opposite lane,” giving Iran oversight of both inbound and outbound maritime traffic. The disturbing fees became ambiguous, dependent on the words “maritime services,” which Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said should have imposed charges.

Another ripple in the channel’s wave is China’s role in support of Iran. China has no economic reason to support Iran. Although The People’s Republic is the world’s largest importer of oil that transits the strait, accounting for 37.7% of the oil that slips through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran supplies only about 12% of China’s oil imports. Saudi Arabia supplies about 14%, Iraq contributes roughly 11%, and the UAE, Oman, and Kuwait load the ships with a combined total of 16%. Credit China with patience and neutrality, who, unlike the United States, is greatly affected by closures of the Strait of Hormuz. Beijing has behaved responsibly and cordially, and not bellicosity and threateningly, pleasingly contrary to Washington’s warmongering and ravings.

Iran’s presumed role in gaining almost complete authority over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and its aggressive behavior in forcing closures does not align with Iran’s economic activity in the Strait. Using the Strait for political purposes and as an economic weapon does not sit well with other nations and does not benefit Iran. Lacking compromise in ending the aggression committed against it and making demands that ensure aggression to continue is baffling. Moral victories are worth nothing in the international battles. Pride, well doesn’t that “goeth before the fall?”