Iran’s win-win negotiating strategy

The late Fred Ikle, undersecretary of defense for policy in the Reagan Administration and my  former boss, observed in “Every War Must End” that “the final outcome of wars depends on a wide … range of factors, many of them elusive — such as the war’s impact on domestic politics and the degree to which outside powers will intervene.”

He adds that “a government may continue fighting a war in order to move toward a hazily perceived ‘compromise’ while failing to take into account the intentions and capabilities of the enemy with whom the compromise would have to be reached.”

His words, written during the later stages of the Vietnam War, are an eerily accurate description of America’s impasse with Iran over the future of the Strait of Hormuz, Israel’s ongoing war in Lebanon, and the fate of Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

The Trump administration appears to have been caught-flat footed when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. The administration had anticipated either Tehran’s collapse in the face of devastating bombings by American and Israeli air forces, or the regime’s quick acceptance of American demands that it dismantle its nuclear activities, terminate its ballistic missile programs, and stop supporting its regional proxies.

Instead, reflecting Ikle’s prescient analysis regarding enemy intentions, the Iranian regime rejected all three American demands, even when an air strike killed Iran’s Supreme Leader. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now is the regime’s true decision-maker; its leader, Major General Ahmad Vahidi actually opposes negotiations.

Ikle’s........

© The Hill