Behind the Headline: The U.S.-Iran Crisis Explained

President Donald Trump has threatened to attack Iran multiple times in recent weeks, accusing Tehran of developing weapons capable of striking the United States. Iranian leaders have vowed to respond if the country is attacked militarily. With rising tensions threatening to further destabilize the Middle East, a lot is on the line as the two countries begin negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland, this week.

Daniel C. Kurtzer, the S. Daniel Abraham Professor of Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs, spent nearly three decades in the U.S. Foreign Service, including serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt. He explains how this crisis came to be and how it may play out if the situation escalates further.
 

Why has the situation with Iran escalated? 

Daniel Kurtzer: The administration points to three reasons for its aggressive stance toward Iran and its preparations for attacking Iran. First, there are uncorroborated assertions that Iran is rebuilding its nuclear program, which Trump said the U.S. “obliterated” last June. Thus far, the administration has provided no proof that this is the case. 

Second, the U.S. has always been concerned about Iran’s missile arsenal and development. Here, too, however, proof has been missing. And third, Trump encouraged Iranian protestors throughout their demonstrations and basically called for regime change. A likely fourth reason for U.S. actions is to pressure Iran in the negotiations being held under Oman’s auspices. 

The bottom line is we don’t really know why the U.S. appears to be preparing for war with Iran. Trump has not yet briefed Congress or spoken to the American people about a possible military action that could inflame regional tensions and spark a bloody conflict.

What does a deal with Iran realistically look like? 

DK: There is no achievable ideal deal with Iran in which Iran would give up its enrichment activities, significantly curb its nuclear activities, abide by United Nations Security Council restrictions on its missile program, and curtail its terrorism activities abroad. A possible deal with Iran would thus focus on a couple of these key elements, in particular limiting enrichment substantially, exporting whatever enriched uranium remains in Iran, and a commitment regarding support for terrorism abroad. Of course, such a deal would look very much like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) from which Trump pulled out in 2018. In such a deal, Trump would need to explain why the deal improves upon the JCPOA.

How does Iran's desire to enrich nuclear material factor into this? 

DK: The JCPOA allowed Iran to enrich uranium on its soil, but with very significant limitations. Iran believes it has a right to enrich uranium, and until the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran accepted the limits of enrichment. Thus, Iran’s insistence on continuing enrichment domestically – albeit with limitations – represents a major stumbling block in the effort to reach an agreement.

What are the regional dynamics at play in this conflict that the U.S. should pay attention to as it considers striking Iran? 

DK: As with the administration’s actions elsewhere, for example in Venezuela and Ukraine, it is unclear whether regional dynamics figure prominently or at all in Trump’s thinking. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been pushing for the U.S. to attack Iran, and he carried that message to Washington several weeks ago. However, in remarks after their meeting, Trump gave no indication that Israeli arguments were influencing his thinking. Arab states, in particular those in the Gulf, are concerned over the likely escalation that a U.S. attack on Iran would lead to. U.S. bases and forces in the region – located in many regional countries – would become potential Iranian retaliatory targets, thus bringing these countries into the war. 

The Biden administration put into place a Middle East air defense coalition that proved itself during Iran’s two attacks against Israel. This remains a formidable defense boost for regional states. That said, there is no public indication of Arab support for a U.S. attack against Iran.

What does the day after look like for Iran if the U.S. does strike? For the region? 

DK: Iranian leaders have threatened retaliation if the U.S. attacks. Likely targets would be Israel and, possibly, U.S. facilities in the region. However, this would increase substantially the likelihood of a wider, prolonged war. 

A critical question for the administration as it ponders next steps, therefore, is whether it is ready to pursue a wider war, or to back off after an initial attack. If the administration’s aim is regime change, it would need to come to the realization that air attacks alone will not lead to the fall of the Islamic Republic. And the introduction of ground troops in Iran would open a fraught chapter both in regional affairs and domestic U.S. politics.