Staff Reports
In recent news, the U.S. government is once again turning its attention to Iran, with President Biden intensifying sanctions against the country. This move has raised eyebrows, as some wondered just how many sanctions are left to impose. International security expert Jim Walsh shared his insights on the matter, emphasizing that economic pressure alone may not be enough to convince Iran to change its ways. After all, sanctions didn’t stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, so why should they work on Iran?
Walsh pointed out that while sanctions are a useful tool in international relations, they don’t hold the all-powerful influence that many believe they possess. In the grand game of diplomacy, both sides need to see some inkling of benefit from any agreement. Otherwise, they might as well be talking to a brick wall. One thing is clear: Iran has its own interests at heart, and those include missile production and nuclear weapon procurement—a non-starter for any negotiation from the U.S. perspective.
The military balance in the region plays a significant role in this conversation. Ironically enough, Iran relies heavily on its ballistic missiles as they lack a strong air force and their air defenses are quite wanting. If anything, these missiles serve as their primary line of defense. Walsh suggested that while Iran may not be completely open to giving up its missile programs, there could be a possibility for negotiations around its nuclear activities. For instance, they might agree to a temporary halt of their enrichment activities, which is a step toward compromise but certainly not a complete surrender.
On the other side of the military coin, former General Jack Keane expressed that the best pathway might well be military action. This view reflects common sentiments among those who think Iran is persistently chasing a nuclear weapon. America’s leverage in the region is influenced by more than just sanctions; the military option remains a critical factor. Walsh acknowledged that while military force is a card that can be played, simply following through with troops on the ground isn’t feasible. They’d have to weigh the implications of any military actions very carefully.
Walsh also pointed out that Iran is already feeling pressure from previous strikes, indicating that they are aware of the potential consequences should negotiations falter. This mix of military and diplomatic pressure creates a precarious balancing act for the U.S. The Iranian leadership has made it clear that they’ll resist demands that erode their defense capabilities, and that makes finding common ground a significant challenge for negotiators.
As discussions continue, there are opportunities for both sides to step back, reevaluate their positions, and see if they can negotiate a path forward that doesn’t end in more chaos. However, it is clear that any successful agreement will require compromises on both sides, with each party recognizing some level of gain in the outcome of their talks.
