Iran's Khamenei says US attack would risk 'regional war' | DW News

Key Concepts

• Red Lines: President Trump’s repeatedly stated conditions for military action against Iran, initially focused on the suppression of protests and later shifting to the nuclear program.
• Operation Midnight Hammer: A US cyber operation launched in June, aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
• Domestic Crackdown: The severe suppression of protests within Iran, resulting in a significant number of casualties.
• Diplomatic Offramp: The possibility of a negotiated solution to de-escalate tensions between the US and Iran.
• US Credibility: The importance of maintaining US consistency and resolve in its foreign policy, particularly regarding Iran.
• Anti-American/Anti-Israeli Sentiment: The prevailing ideological stance of the Iranian government.

---

US-Iran Relations: Potential for Deal or Conflict?

This discussion centers on the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, focusing on the possibility of negotiations and the potential for military conflict. The conversation highlights a complex situation driven by both strategic considerations and domestic political factors within Iran.

US Policy & Shifting Red Lines

The core of the discussion revolves around President Trump’s approach to Iran. Initially, the President articulated a “red line” concerning Iran’s violent crackdown on domestic protests. He threatened military action if the regime continued to kill protesters. Despite reports of over 36,000 deaths during these protests, no military action was taken. Subsequently, the stated red line shifted to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, demanding a deal or facing potential attack.

Bayon Ben Taleblu, Senior Director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues that these shifting red lines present a significant problem. He emphasizes that the initial red line regarding the crackdown on protesters is fundamentally separate from the nuclear issue, ballistic missiles, and transnational terrorism – the topics reportedly being discussed in potential negotiations. He states, “I don't see how there could be any kind of nuclear deal offramp to a major domestic humanitarian catastrophe.”

Iran’s Position & Motivation for Talks

Iran initially refused to negotiate under threat of military action. However, it now appears willing to engage in talks, a shift Taleblu attributes to the regime’s desire to avert a potential military strike following its “humiliating defeat” in June with Operation Midnight Hammer. The regime’s decision to shut down the internet for over 20 days during the protests is cited as evidence of its desperation.

Taleblu suggests that Iran is attempting to distract from the domestic unrest and portray a willingness to negotiate as a means of avoiding military intervention. He notes that President Trump’s public support for the protesters in Iraq may have exacerbated the crackdown, but doesn’t necessarily equate to harming the Iranian people directly, attributing the violence to the Iranian government itself. He clarifies, “What I see is potentially having the opportunity to hurt them morally… is you know the fact that the president promised that quote unquote help was on the way.”

Operation Midnight Hammer & Diminished Iranian Leverage

The discussion highlights the significance of “Operation Midnight Hammer,” a US cyber operation launched in June, which Taleblu asserts effectively removed Iran’s “nuclear card.” He argues that Iran can no longer credibly threaten nuclear escalation as a bargaining chip, and any attempt to regain leverage would likely be met with further action from the US or other countries. He states, “The Islamic Republic can't meaningfully flex the nuclear card because President Trump took them took that card away from them uh last June with Operation Midnight Hammer.”

The Risk of US Credibility & Historical Parallels

A central argument presented by Taleblu is that President Trump has inextricably linked US credibility and national security interests to the situation in Iran. He argues that the President has broken the taboo of supporting Iranian protesters, but this has created a situation where inaction would be detrimental to US standing. He draws parallels to US responses to protests in Hungary (1956) and Iraq (1991), warning that failing to follow through on support for Iranian protesters could damage America’s reputation. He warns, “we would risk America would risk looking like uh what it did in 1956 with the protesters in Hungary and 1991 with the protesters in Iraq.”

The Nature of the Iranian Regime & US Strategy

Taleblu frames the issue not as a humanitarian crisis, but as a strategic alignment problem. He emphasizes the fundamental ideological opposition between the Iranian government – which he describes as “the most anti-American government and the most anti-Israeli government in the heartland of the Muslim Middle East” – and the pro-American and pro-Israeli elements within Iranian society. He believes the US should prioritize aligning with these pro-Western factions within Iran. He states, “This is about will America align ways, means and ends on Iran uh given the chasm that exists between state and society.”

Prospects for a Deal & Potential Outcomes

Taleblu expresses skepticism about the possibility of a successful diplomatic resolution. He believes the nature of the threat, the number of times US credibility has been intertwined with the issue, and the unprecedented severity of the crackdown on protesters make a deal unrealistic. He concludes that President Trump “cannot afford to entertain diplomatic options with the Islamic Republic at this point.” He estimates the number of deaths during the protests to be between 36,000 and 40,000, characterizing this as unprecedented in recent Iranian history.

Conclusion

The conversation paints a pessimistic picture of the US-Iran relationship. Taleblu argues that the situation has evolved beyond a simple negotiation over nuclear weapons and now involves fundamental issues of US credibility, domestic Iranian politics, and the strategic alignment of forces within the region. He suggests that the US is likely to pursue a more assertive policy towards Iran, given the perceived constraints on President Trump’s options. The discussion underscores the high stakes and the potential for escalation in this volatile geopolitical landscape.