Looking for an exit plan to end the Iran conflict

Multiple reports have indicated that US President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran as the fallout significantly hurts his domestic political standing.

Raising gas prices have come at a time when polls show American voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.

While ending the war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the United States and Iran understand that deescalation is in both nations’ best interests.

George Beebe, the director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, the executive vice-president of the Quincy Institute, have written what an “exit plan” would look like.

Iran’s reconstruction

In an essay published by Foreign Policy, they acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway. But they said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.

On Iran’s side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing “its commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons,” re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping, and agreeing “to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan.”

The United States, meanwhile, would “grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction.” 

It “would also permit a specified group of states – such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf – to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices.”

Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step. The next move would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.

“The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament,” they wrote, adding: 

Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp – one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation.

Security needs

Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.

In an analysis last week, Sarah Yerkes, of the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace, argued that even Middle East nations that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs.

It comes at a times when Trump’s war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.

Yerkes, a senior fellow of the Middle East Program at the Washington-based think tank, also highlighted how Trump’s handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.

“Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes,” Yerkes explained, adding: 

One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. 

Public ire

“Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire [from the White House],” Yerkes added.

The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that “each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States – from friends and foes, inside and outside – is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure.”

Brad Reed is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

This article is republished from Common Dreams under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of China Factor.