How we planted the seeds of war with Iran: Decisions made in Washington brought us to this fateful moment
President Donald Trump gestures during a rally for evangelical supporters at the King Jesus International Ministry church, Friday, Jan. 3, 2020, in Miami. (Lynne Sladky/AP)
For almost 40 years, American national security officials have looked down the barrel of the gun of war with Iran. I sat in rooms in the White House and Pentagon several times as small groups of senior officials considered what such a war would look like, how it would end, and whether we would be better off for having fought it.
The answer was always the same: It would be highly destructive in several nations, it would end in a stalemate with the Iranian regime in place, and nothing positive would have been accomplished.
Despite those conclusions, U.S. administrations used limited force against Iranian targets in the Gulf, conducted worldwide operations against Iranian intelligence, and assisted other nations to target Iranian forces and their multi-national militias. Those actions were often combined with credible, back-channel warnings of even greater U.S. operations. On several occasions, these U.S. actions seemed to result in a reduction in Iranian aggression aimed directly at American targets. Indeed, until President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran and its militias such as Hezbollah had largely backed off from attacks on Americans.
After the invasion of Iraq, all of that changed. Iran’s Quds Force, under command of Qassem Soleimani, orchestrated lethal attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and later in Afghanistan. Despite the death of American soldiers, two U.S. administrations did not act directly against Soleimani or Quds Force bases in Iran.
After the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq, the ISIS terrorist group quickly took control of major Iraqi and Syrian cities and threatened a takeover of Baghdad. Iran and the U.S. both saw ISIS as an enemy and acted, sometimes in coordination, to defeat the so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria. During some of that period, the U.S. and Iran were negotiating a multilateral, nuclear arms control agreement and having more diplomatic contact than they had since the 1979 revolution. The Quds Force was simultaneously building and strengthening a network of militias and terrorist cells in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Afghanistan and Yemen. With the signature and implementation of the nuclear arms control agreement, however, there was a possibility of a wider rapprochement between Washington and Tehran.
With the advent of the Trump administration, its abandonment of the international nuclear agreement and its imposition of crushing economic sanctions on Iran, Tehran used its Quds Force to respond. Apparently acting on the theory that the U.S. would change its policies if it felt some pain at the hands of Quds and its militias, Iran stepped up its anti-American activities.
By 2019, the U.S. economic sanctions had stimulated anti-regime demonstrations and uprising across Iran. Security forces killed hundreds of protestors. It was the greatest threat the Ayatollah-run system had ever faced. At the same time, demonstrators in Iraq took to the streets to protest Iran’s influence. The Iranian leadership saw the two, simultaneous protest movements as a major threat. One of their responses was to increase Quds Force pressure on the U.S. That is why over 30 rockets crashed down on a base near Kirkuk, Iraq, killing an American civilian contractor and wounding U.S. forces.
That attack lit the current fire. The U.S. responded by a large-scale F-15E raid on Iranian-backed militia bases in both Iraq and Syria. To reply to that, an Iranian militia attacked the perimeter of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, burning the reception buildings. According to the Trump administration, Soleimani then plotted a major attack on Americans somewhere in the region, an attack that could kill hundreds.
Despite his assassination, the plans and capabilities for that attack still exist. Because of his assassination, the leaders in Tehran will undoubtedly approve the implementation of those plans. And more.
Thus, now we once again look down the barrel of the gun of war with Iran, a war whose outcome is likely to be the same as analysts in several administrations have predicted: It will be highly destructive in several nations, it will end in a stalemate with the Iranian regime in place, and nothing positive will have been accomplished.
However, this time it might also result in Russia and/or China increasing their role in the region. Certainly it will cause Iran, when the smoke clears, to build a nuclear weapons force and do so in ways and places that further U.S. bombing will not stop. And for many Americans, any conflict with Iran will mean the painful loss of family members.
This current path to war or spasm conflict, thus, traces its origin to the U.S. decision to abandon the nuclear arms control agreement and devastate the Iranian economy. That was a choice made in the U.S., not in Iran. It was a decision that launched us, almost inevitably, on to the current path.
Clarke was the national coordinator for security and counter-terrorism in the Clinton and Bush (43) administrations. He is the author of several books.
Trump threatens to strike Iranian cultural sites, impose ‘very big’ sanctions on Iraq
President Trump vowed that if Iran took military action against the United States, he may order attacks on the sites, which could constitute a war crime under international law.
The president responded to a move by Iraq’s parliament to try to expel foreign troops by threatening to impose the sanctions and demanding that Iraq reimburse the United States for the billions of dollars it had invested in a major air base there.
Killing of Soleimani follows long push from Pompeo for action against Iran
The secretary of state began conversations with President Trump months ago about killing Iran’s top commander, but Trump at the time would not countenance such an operation, officials said.
