CounterPunch Exclusives

CounterPunch Exclusives

Image by Mohammed Ibrahim.

The Trump administration reportedly cannot understand why Iran is refusing to accede to US demands that it halt uranium enrichment, limit the range of its ballistic missiles, and stop supporting militant groups in the region. After all, Iran’s economy is in dire straits, people have resumed demonstrating against the regime, and the US has arrayed enough firepower offshore to conduct a world war.

Trump is acting as though he wants to finish the job he started last June, when it turned out that Iran’s nuclear facilities had not been obliterated as claimed. Yet with all those negative signs, Iran has refused to fold.

This situation is hardly new to US foreign policy specialists. An opponent that appears to be weak and facing overwhelming power nevertheless refuses to capitulate.

Think North Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, North Korea, Cuba over decades, or even Venezuela until recently. Logically, weak regimes ought to give in rather than face destruction. But that is not always where logic leads. Ask the Ukrainians.

Why is the capacity to resist often outweighed by the necessity to resist? A regime facing an adversary with awesome military power may consider that to give in would be to surrender its legitimacy. And regime legitimacy is crucial to political survival.

Leaders in all those countries that have faced US threats came to power in revolutionary movements directed against an “imperialist” enemy. Their right to rule vanishes if they fail to confront that enemy, no matter the odds. Moreover, they must assume that the enemy’s real aim is not merely to further weaken the regime but to displace it.

“For Iran, submitting to U.S. terms is more dangerous than suffering another U.S. strike,” said Ali Vaez, the Iran........

© CounterPunch