Reprinted with permission from Trita Parsi‘s Substack:
Donald Trump was presented with several war options last Friday but rejected them all, at least for the moment. Neither did he accept the negotiated package on the table. Instead, he opted to continue his economic warfare against Iran. Given the expectation that Trump would restart the war after the midterms, optimism has grown that Trump may finally have abandoned the fantasy of a military victory. I suspect that optimism is premature. Instead, I see possible scenarios: War, peace, and a Swiss cheese status quo.
Though pressure for war has been intensifying, if Trump doesn’t go down this path in the next three to four weeks, I agree that the likelihood will start to dwindle as Trump’s maneuverability will be eclipsed by a Democratic Senate and House; he will likely lose his Secretary of War, and the next Prime Minister in Israel will likely not share Benjamin Netanyahu’s obsession with Iran or his skills in playing the American political system.
But even if the risk of war declines, that does not necessarily mean the likelihood of a deal increases. Sticking points such as Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, the status of Iran’s future enrichment, a regional ceasefire, sanctions relief, and the political cost Trump will pay for any deal with Tehran make it difficult to both reach a deal – and to keep it.
The most likely scenario may prove to be neither war nor peace – yet different from the middle path Trump chose last Friday. In this scenario, Trump’s economic warfare and blockade would only exist on paper. Meaning, Trump rejects both war and peace, walks away and claims to retain the blockade and sanctions infrastructure, but in reality imperceptibly begins to let it wither away.
The blockade begins to loosen, sanctions enforcement begins to decay, and slowly but surely, Asian and Middle Eastern countries begin trading with and investing in Iran. A new equilibrium emerges in which sanctions enforcement is strong enough for the U.S. to claim the restrictions are still in place, yet weak enough to prevent Tehran from challenging the new status quo.
This Swiss cheese scenario is the only walk-away option that could work. Because if Trump seriously retains the blockade and the sanctions, tensions between the US and Iran would be such that the two countries would constantly be on the verge of war with each other – as they are right now. Such an unstable status quo would eventually escalate into another war, defeating the very purpose of the walk-away.
To be clear, the Swiss cheese scenario is suboptimal compared with a peace deal. A peace deal that would end 47 years of enmity, uphold non-proliferation goals, open the Iranian economy to American companies, and stabilize the region would far better serve U.S. interests. But the walk-away option carries the benefit, from Trump’s perspective, of avoiding an agreement that would manifest the failure of his war, as the Islamabad Memorandum did in the view of its critics.
Given Trump’s aversion to admitting defeat, his fear of coming across as a loser, his impatience with complicated diplomacy, his obsession with outdoing Obama’s JCPOA, and Iran’s disinterest in giving him an ego-soothing exit ramp, he may end up choosing the Swiss cheese walk-away option.
Not because it’s better, but because it will cost him less.
Trita Parsi is the Executive VP of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an award-winning author. Washingtonian Magazine has named him one of the 25 most influential voices on foreign policy. Noam Chomsky calls him “one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran”
