Front Burner - Could Iran and the U.S. be headed for armed conflict?

Episode Date: May 22, 2019

On Tuesday Iran's foreign minister accused the U.S. of playing a "very dangerous" game. He was referring to America's decision to move warships and bombers to the Persian Gulf and, more broadly, to the serious escalation of tensions between the two countries. Could the U.S. and Iran be headed for war? Today on Front Burner, Nader Hashemi, the director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver, shares his thoughts on how relations took such a serious turn

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. As I talk about it, I can feel and smell everything that I did back then. And he looks down at me, I'm looking up at him, and he says, that's my little girl. It's a 30-year-old homicide where we don't have anybody charged and convicted.

Felt like a murderer had gotten away with something. Tell me now, did you have anything to do with the murder? Someone Knows Something with David Ridgen, Season 5. Now available. Go to cbc.ca slash sks. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. On Tuesday, Iran's foreign minister accused the U.S. of playing a, quote, very dangerous game. Having all these military assets in a small waterway is in and of itself prone to accident, particularly when you have people who are interested in accidents.

He was referring to America's decision to move warships and bombers to the Persian Gulf. One of the most potent displays of U.S. military power is on the move. One of the most potent displays of U.S. military power is on the move. A move National Security Advisor John Bolton called a clear and unmistakable message for Iran. And we can assume more broadly to the serious escalation of tensions between the two countries. Tensions that have people wondering if an armed conflict could actually happen. Mr. President, are we going to war with Iran? I hope not.

Today on FrontBurner, are America and Iran headed to war? And how did things take such a serious turn in that direction? I'm speaking with Nader Hashemi. He's the director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver. Hi, Nader. Thank you so much for joining us. Happy to be with you. So over the weekend, U.S. President Donald Trump sent out this tweet, and he tweeted, quote, If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again! And I know we've seen this kind of bluster before from the US president, particularly on Twitter, and it hasn't amounted to much. But is there a sense from you that there's something different going on here? Well, I think what's different is that it seems like the United States and Iran are on the brink

of war. There's been an escalation in the rhetoric, the sending of warships and bomber squadrons. And so there's this escalation in rhetoric and in discussion coming from, mostly from Washington, trying to challenge and threaten the Islamic Republic of Iran. I'm hearing little stories about Iran. If they do anything, they will suffer greatly. stories about Iran. If they do anything, they will suffer greatly. Iran is not interested in escalation. We have said very clearly that we will not be the party to begin escalation, but we will defend ourselves. So I want to get into with you what we've seen in the last few weeks, these escalations you're talking about. But first, I just want to be really clear here.

You think it's very possible that these two powerful countries could go to war with each other? Yes, I think it's very possible. And I think we are looking at, I think, the highest possibility of a military confrontation between these two countries that has ever existed in the, you know, the history of the relations between the two countries, particularly after the 79 Revolution. So this is a, you is a very critical moment. So I want to go through with you what's actually happened. Can we start with May 5th, when the U.S. National Security Advisor, John Bolton,

announced that they would be deploying aircraft carriers and bomber planes to the region because of, quote, troubling and escalatory indications and warnings, end quote, quite vague, related to Iran. In a statement, Bolton said the U.S. wasn't looking for war, but said, quote, we are fully prepared to respond to any attack. Any attack on the United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.

And what were these indications and warnings that prompted them to do this? Well, according to the American narrative, there was evidence to suggest that Iran was moving missiles onto some of its naval vessels that could pose a threat to American interests in the region, American naval forces in the region. And so that was the justification for the sending of warships, a bomber squadron. And then about a week later, discussions and plans of sending up to 120,000 American troops in the Middle East due to a new and alleged threat from Iran. I think it's fake news, okay? Now, would I do that?

Absolutely. But we have not planned for that. Hopefully, we're not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we'd send a hell of a lot more troops than that. And what do we know about the intelligence behind this new threat? There have been warnings that Iran was planning to attack Americans in the Middle East. The general consensus among experts seems to be that it was a misunderstanding, a misperception on the part of the Americans. In many ways, I think the objective interpretation of these

developments is that Iran was responding to perceived threats from the United States, and there was an overreaction by the Americans toward Iranian behavior. Two Saudi Arabian oil tankers have been attacked, one of them bound for the United States. Iran, of course, denying any involvement. Three U.S. officials now tell NBC News the assessment is it's highly likely they were hit by Iran or its proxies. So I do in a minute want to get to how it came to be that Iran felt these threats from the United States in the first place. But first, what's happened since the United States deployed aircraft carriers and bomber planes to the region in just the last

couple of weeks? Well, there's been conflicting statements coming out of Washington, D.C. There seems to be more than one U.S. position with respect to Iran. You have John Bolton, the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, talking very tough toward Iran. But we've also made clear to the Iranians that if American interests are attacked, we will most certainly respond in an appropriate fashion. we will most certainly respond in an appropriate fashion. Well, you have the president of the United States sort of striking a more diplomatic tone, calling for negotiations with Iran. If they called, we would certainly negotiate, but that's going to be up to them.

I'd only want them to call if they're ready. If they're not ready, they don't have to bother. But a lot of flip-flops. Right, because, of course, he made that threat on Twitter this weekend. Exactly. I mean, that's what's so interesting. In many ways, it's vintage Donald Trump. He talks about diplomatic negotiations. He asks Iran to call him. Then he issues a threat that Iran will be annihilated if it challenges the United States. And then literally the next day, he says that he's open to negotiation. So this is in many ways, you know, classic Donald Trump. And it suggests a lot of, you know,

confusion in the White House. There's clearly an internal debate over what to do about Iran. OK. I mean, we have seen many U.S. officials and Iranian officials come out and say that they don't want a war. Right? Absolutely. The message from Iran is actually consistent that they are trying to de-escalate. Well, certainly Iran does not want confrontation and escalation. Well, certainly Iran does not want confrontation and escalation, but we have not lived 7,000 years by escaping from those who want to bully us. trying to goad Iran into a conflict. And so the message coming out of Tehran consistently is an attempt to de-escalate and not fall into this perceived trap that's being set for them by elements within the White House. What I'm saying is that there are people who have for a very long time

advocated the United States to be engaged in wars. The saying in Washington is that there is no war that Ambassador Bolton doesn't like. Let's go back several years here and talk about the Obama administration. It really did feel like this very tense history between the United States and Iran was cooled. And can you tell me a little bit more about how that unfolded at the time? Well, President Obama, right from the beginning of his administration, in fact, during his campaign as president, took a position that the way to deal with the challenge that Iran posed

for American interest, Western interest in the Middle East, was to try and engage in diplomacy. That diplomatic initiative revolved around Iran's very controversial nuclear program. It led to a nuclear agreement in 2015. This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change. Change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure. That had support from virtually the entire international community embodied in a UN Security Council resolution that de-escalated tensions. And so that led a lot of people to hope that for the first time in roughly 40 years, these two countries that had no

direct contact had turned over a new page, and that the future looked brighter, that this settlement around Iran's nuclear program would perhaps open doors to greater contact, communication and integration of Iran into the international community. Now, that was the way things were looking until Donald Trump got elected. And he has identified a different course with respect to Iran, one that's characterized by the phrase maximum pressure. Right from the beginning of the election campaign of 2016, Trump strongly criticized the Iran nuclear deal and said that he would tear it up. It's just shocking. It's one of the dumbest deals I've ever seen.

John Kerry is a terrible negotiator. And that's effectively what he did. He pulled the United States out of that deal roughly a year ago. At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program. Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. And what did he not like about this deal? He has a lot of advisors, you know, and a lot of allies in the region who were encouraging him in this direction. Right. And why are they against this deal? I think the official stated reason is that they believe that Iran is the key source of instability in the Middle East. And if Iran can be confronted and challenged to perhaps either change its behavior or change

the regime, then the broader Middle East would be much more stable. I think that's fundamentally their view. The Iranian regime is the leading state sponsor of terror. It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. I think there's a lot of other elements to it. Iran has posed a challenge to many of the other states in the region that are its regional rivals, Saudi Arabia and Israel in particular. And I believe that Israel and all the countries of the region and all the countries of the region and

all the countries who seek peace in the world should stand together with the United States against Iranian aggression. There's been conflicts, proxy conflicts around the region. So I think that's their fundamental, I think, stated position as to why they would like the United States to take a much more hawkish position with respect to Iran. And these same countries, primarily Saudi Arabia and Israel, were very critical of the Obama administration's diplomatic outreach to Iran. This idea that Iran is responsible for so much instability in the Middle East. Do you buy that? I partially buy it. I partially reject it. I mean, there's no doubt that Iran is a destabilizing player in the Middle East, first and foremost, in the case of Syria, where it has been directly involved and complicit

in the atrocities, the war crimes, and the crimes against humanity. I think there's, you know, no doubt that, particularly in the Syria theater of conflict, but also in Iraq and to a certain extent in Lebanon and in Yemen, Iran has played a destabilizing role. I think the point I want to emphasize here is that, while Iran is a destabilizing actor, it's not the only destabilizing actor. Saudi Arabia is responsible for a hell of a lot of instability. The United Arab Emirates, that is often misportrayed as a bastion of liberal tolerance, is responsible for a lot of instability. The United Arab Emirates that is often misportrayed as a bastion of liberal tolerance is responsible for a lot of instability. And also the state of Israel, particularly under the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu, has presided over its own share of Middle East instability.

So I think one has to be objective and honest that there are other actors here that are contributing to instability, not just the Islamic Republic of Iran. And so let's talk about some of what this administration has done vis-a-vis Iran since they came into power. You know, they've unilaterally pulled out of this nuclear agreement. Absolutely. And what followed from that was an attempt to impose very harsh and punitive economic sanctions on Iran, not just on Iran's oil and gas sector,

but these sanctions are so punitive and extensive, the United States is also sanctioning countries that trade with Iran. Since the US reinstated sanctions, foreign investment has evaporated, and the economy is on the slide. The International Monetary Fund forecasts GDP will shrink by 6% this year. It's very difficult for the people, very difficult. When people can't afford even milk and dates, what are they supposed to eat? You go to bed and when you wake up, prices have been raised 10 times. And there's an attempt effectively to sanction Iran both directly and indirectly to effectively crush the economy, to prevent Iran

from selling its oil in the hope, I think, fundamentally, among the most hawkish members of the Trump administration to promote regime change. If they can't promote regime change, the sort of the fallback preference would be to support regime change of behavior in terms of its regional policies. So essentially, they want to bring the economy to its knees so that the people will revolt against the current regime and a new regime will take its place. Yes, I think that's very much the preference of John Bolton. And also it's the hope of Trump's regional allies, primarily Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Donald Trump thinks that he is pushing the Iranian people to rise up against their government. Do you think that's likely to happen because of what's happening here? No, he says, because the hungrier the people get, the more they're going to hate him. If Trump acted properly, people might even have liked him. So when we're talking about the United States' behavior towards Iran, first, these economic sanctions have had a crippling effect. But I understand that the Revolutionary Guard was also designated as a terrorist organization. And this is also a very significant escalation. Yes, it's part of, I think, this plan to play hardball with the Islamic Republic.

Within the last month, that was one of the steps, I think, that escalated these tensions. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard were officially designated as a terrorist organization. The sanctions were tightened, not just on oil and gas, but extra sanctions on Iran's mining and steel industry. Countries that traded with Iran were now being sanctioned. So this is a series of policies that all have taken place within the last month, sending a clear message, I think, from Washington to Tehran, that they are very much, Tehran, that is, is in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. And, you know, the pressure that Iran is under is only going to escalate. So when you mentioned at the beginning of this conversation that Iran in the last few weeks

was responding to what it perceives as threats from the United States, is this what we're talking about here? You know, these economic sanctions that have been put on the country and have also been expanded to other countries, and the Revolutionary Guard being designated as a terrorist organization? Yes, I think Iran is responding to this new hardline policy coming out of Washington. I mean, look, you have many senior American foreign policy advisors to the president who are open and explicit that they want to change the regime in Iran. So Iran is not going to simply sit on its rear end and do nothing. They're going to try and respond to this increased

pressure. And I think that's fundamentally what we're seeing. And how has Iran responded in the last year to the United States unilaterally pulling out of the nuclear deal, like around nuclear weapons? Well, up until recently, they have stated that they are going to adhere to the deal. That is actually a huge demonstration of tolerance from the Islamic Republic, because the entire nature of the agreement that Iran had with the United States and its allies was that Iran would roll back its nuclear program, put it under international inspection in exchange for economic benefits. It's gotten no economic benefits since Trump pulled out of the deal. So one of the things that has happened recently that, again, I think could

possibly lead to war is what happened on May the 8th, when Iran formally announced that unless the Europeans provide some sort of sanctions relief, they will start to not honor certain elements of the Iran nuclear deal that have to do with nuclear enrichment and the production of heavy water, which could be used for a plutonium bomb. If Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China return to the negotiating table and help Iran reach its benefits in the field of oil and banking, Iran will return to its commitments according to the nuclear deal. So the clock is ticking, in other words, to see whether Iran is actually going to pursue that

policy. So that's, I think, their sort of quid pro quo in response to the situation that they find themselves in under incredible amount of pressure. And so now they're playing the cards that they have at their disposal, which I want to emphasize, there's not many good cards that Iran has to play. When we talked about at the beginning of this conversation that it's very likely that these two countries can find themselves in a war, like what would be the path to that? I think an accident, some sort of misperception and miscommunication. The Persian Gulf is full of vessels that are both Iranian vessels and American vessels. There have been many incidents over the last several years where there have been close contact and the possibility of some sort of military engagement. So something like that, I think, can quickly trigger a conflict, particularly when you have someone like John Bolton, who has the president's

ear and is very trigger happy. In the coming weeks and months, what are you going to be looking for here? Well, I'll be looking for what happens 60 days from May the 8th, when Iran announced that it's not going to be complying anymore with certain elements of the nuclear deal. Would that provide an opportunity for John Bolton to then sort of up the ante? So that's going to be an important, I think, moment to watch for. But more broadly, I think we are all going to be on tender hooks for the next year and a half until the next presidential election. I think that's very much what the Iranian strategy actually is to try and wait Donald Trump out and hope to get a better president. So I think we're going to be in this situation where, you know,

Iran and the United States will be saber-rattling a sense of brinkmanship for the next several months until the next president of the United States is decided. Nader, thank you so much for this conversation. You're welcome. Before we go today, I just want to point out the results of a Reuters-Ipsos poll released on Tuesday. They spoke to 1,000 adults and found that 50% of them believe the U.S. will go to a war with Iran within the next few years. Few were supportive of a preemptive attack on the country. But if Iran attacked U.S. military forces first, four out of five people believe the United States should respond in a full or limited way.

That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson. Thanks for listening to Frontburner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts. It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back.

Gay Girl Gone. Available now.