Iran: Analyzing Trump's messages to protesters | DW News

Key Concepts

• Iranian Protests: Ongoing demonstrations in Iran sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini, facing violent suppression by the regime.
• US National Interest vs. Iranian Protester Goals: Potential divergence between US strategic objectives (limiting Iran’s regional influence, nuclear program) and the Iranian people’s desire for broader political change.
• Regime Change: The possibility of the US pursuing a change in the Iranian government, and the risks associated with such a policy.
• Non-Kinetic Options: Diplomatic, economic, and cyber strategies as alternatives to military intervention.
• Psychological Warfare: Utilizing information and propaganda to influence perceptions and behaviors.
• Raza Pahlavi: The exiled son of Iran’s last Shah, potentially being considered as a figurehead by the US.
• Existential Crisis: The current state of the Iranian regime, facing significant internal challenges.

Trump’s Response to Iranian Protests: A Detailed Analysis

The discussion centers on former President Trump’s public statements of support for Iranian protesters and his ambiguous promise of “help is on its way,” following the violent crackdown on demonstrations in Iran. The analysis explores the potential implications of Trump’s rhetoric and the possible US responses to the crisis.

Trump’s Statements and Initial Reactions

Trump, via his Truth Social platform, labeled Iranian protesters as “patriots” and encouraged them to “take over the country’s institutions.” He threatened those using violence against demonstrators with a “big price” and announced the suspension of all talks with the Iranian government, deeming the killing of protesters “senseless.” His statement, “Help is on its way,” prompted questions from journalists regarding the nature of this assistance. Trump responded evasively, stating, “You’re going to have to figure that one out. I’m sorry.”

Potential US Responses: A Range of Options

Bill Saab, Senior Managing Director of TrendsUS, outlined a spectrum of potential US responses being considered by the National Security Council. These options range from:

• Conventional Strikes: Limited or more extensive military actions.
• Extended Bombing Campaigns: Larger-scale aerial attacks.
• Non-Kinetic Options: Including cyber operations and “psychological warfare” – utilizing information and propaganda to influence the situation.
• Economic Punishment: Imposing harsher economic sanctions, including a proposed 25% tariff on trade with the US for any entity doing business with Iran.

Saab emphasized the unpredictability of Trump as commander-in-chief, stating, “He’s quite an unpredictable commander-in-chief. So we’re going to have to wait for the next few hours to see what he’s going to decide.” He also noted a White House press secretary’s admission that only Trump knows his ultimate course of action.

Economic Sanctions: Limited Impact?

The proposed 25% tariff on trade with the US was assessed as unlikely to significantly impact the Iranian regime’s survival. Saab argued that the primary burden would fall on countries trading with Iran, specifically China (a major oil buyer), India, Pakistan, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates. He stated, “the economics of it right now, frankly, seem to be a little bit less relevant day by day” given the intensity of the crisis.

US Interests and Potential Trade-offs

A central argument raised by Saab is the potential divergence between US national interests and the aspirations of Iranian protesters. He posited that the US might be satisfied with a government in Tehran that abandons its “destructive agenda abroad” – specifically its missile program, ties to regional proxies, and nuclear enrichment infrastructure – even if it means maintaining a modified version of the current regime. He acknowledged that such a deal would likely be seen as a betrayal by the protesters. He noted that Iranian officials had already privately reached out to Trump seeking negotiations. “Having um perfect match between the US national interest and the hopes and dreams of the Iranians is going to be incredibly difficult frankly. Um and some trade-offs are going to have to be made.”

The Role of Raza Pahlavi

The US administration’s interest in Raza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last Shah, was discussed. Saab described the initial US engagement as a “feel-out” process, initiated by Trump instructing his envoy, Steve Whit, to assess Pahlavi’s potential influence. While Pahlavi is reportedly popular among some protesters (estimates ranging from 60-65% approval), Trump has not yet formally endorsed him, mirroring his approach to opposition leaders in Venezuela.

Risks of Military Action and the Venezuela Precedent

John Hoffman, from the Kato Institute, cautioned against military intervention, highlighting the significant risks involved. He criticized Trump’s tendency towards “flashy” victories with potentially detrimental strategic consequences. Hoffman argued that Trump’s approach may be influenced by perceived successes in Venezuela, but warned against repeating similar mistakes. He stated, “Venezuela included of where you would have perhaps tactical success but strategic failure.”

Diplomacy and Avoiding Regime Change

Hoffman advocated for a hands-off approach, suggesting Trump should maintain the distance he initially demonstrated by not meeting with Pahlavi. He emphasized that the US cannot “politically engineer a new status quo” in Iran and that any change must be self-sustaining. He expressed concern that those advocating for intervention may push for prolonged US engagement to manage the aftermath of regime change, creating an “open-ended conflict.”

US Endgame and Regional Partners’ Influence

Hoffman suggested that the US may be pursuing regime change in Iran, a long-standing goal of “hawkish folks within Washington DC” and US regional partners. He warned against the “constant moving of the goalpost” and the potential for escalating US involvement. He stated, “This is a multi-decade effort of folks within uh hawkish folks within Washington DC and a lot of uh uh the United States regional partners who have pushed for direct confrontation with Iran.”

Conclusion

The analysis reveals a complex situation characterized by Trump’s ambiguous rhetoric, a range of potential US responses, and a potential conflict between US strategic interests and the desires of the Iranian people. While the US is considering various options, including military intervention, experts caution against such a course of action, advocating for diplomacy and recognizing the limitations of external intervention in shaping Iran’s future. The discussion highlights the importance of clearly defining US objectives and acknowledging the potential trade-offs involved in responding to the Iranian crisis.