The consequences of war would be too numerous to count; Expert

Kurk Dorsey who is a member of the Master in Public Policy faculty and a Professor of History at the University of New Hampshire thinks there is a good chance of a really bad war or wave of revolution in the region in the next few years. The author of three books, most recently “Whales and Nations” says Iran and United States still have a chance to start another negotiation but he suggests that the Iranian government wait until the new government takes office in Washington. You can read the Full interview of associate professor of history at the University of New Hampshire with ILNA news agency as follows:

Q: So why did Europe fail to implement a payment channel with Iran called INSTEX?

A: I think that there are 3 reasons: 1) European governments are currently very focused on their coronavirus problems. 2) They are hoping to buy time and have Trump lose the election in November. 3) They have concerns with Iran's policy itself, so they do not have a lot of sympathy for Iran's government either

Q: What are the political, economic and social consequences of chaos and war in the region?

A: The consequences of war would be too numerous to count. Just the casualties and the economic disruption would be enormous, and there would be chaos like we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001/2003. The problem is that we don't see a lot of hope for peaceful change in the governments of the region, which don't seem too interested in letting their citizens vote for good leadership. We may end up with chaos and suffering either way.

Q: In recent days, we have witnessed an increase in tensions in the Persian Gulf. Do you think that conflicts can be resolved or it will have dire consequences for the region?

A: The future looks dangerous. With oil prices down, the region produces little of value that the rest of the world wants to buy. That means that it's hard to see how any of the countries in the region can offer meaningful jobs and economic lives for their growing populations. When there are a lot of people unhappy with their economic and social conditions, governments are tempted to take drastic actions, like start a war, crackdown on dissent, or sell a radical ideology that isn't sustainable. So I think there is a good chance of a really bad war or wave of revolution in the region in the next few years.

Q: Does the U.S.-Iran relationship have a Future? 

A: First, both countries could change leaders and start over in their relationship. So it will be up to the Iranian government to be patient and outlast President Trump, and it will be up to the new US administration to show a willingness to go back to Obama’s deal. Having said that, Iran's leaders should ask themselves why the European governments are not more willing to help; if they are honest, they will admit that they have made more enemies than friends since 1979, even among countries that do not have a history of meddling in Iran.

Q: What consequences do growing tensions in the Strait of Hormuz have for all world?

A: If it stays the same, it won't be much different than it has been at various times since 1979.  But it could get worse and lead to a closure of the straits to oil traffic if a low-level official in one of many countries makes a mistake.

Q: Some in Iran believe that negotiating with Trump has no result because the other party does not adhere to any commitment. How do you justify this paradox in the behavior of the White House?

A: President Trump is a businessman, not a diplomat. So he approaches Iran like a rich man approaches a less powerful man: offering threats and inducements to show that he can get what he wants the easy way or the hard way.  What he does not understand is that a country like Iran has a long history of standing up to powerful countries and cannot be forced to do something. So in his mind, it is not a paradox.  In my mind, it is bad diplomacy.  But that is the way he operates--look at how he went from calling Kim Jong Un –Rocketman- to calling him a trustworthy leader for peace. There is very little that Trump believes as an ideology, just that he wants to be seen as a winner.

Q: Trump's maximum pressure policy will collapse or it ultimately works?

A: Yes, it would probably be better if the goal is to get a deal, but Trump's goal is not to get a deal but to do something different from President Obama. He will not budge unless he can sell a new agreement as better than the one Obama had in 2015.

Q: The sanctions have hurt ordinary Iranians, highly affecting prices of imported medicines. Why does the US government pursue such policies to achieve its goals?

A: I see three answers to this question.  First, Trump has downplayed the coronavirus in the US, so he cannot lift sanctions on Iran without admitting that the virus is very serious. Second, he does not have much empathy for anyone, so it does not bother him that people in another country are suffering--they cannot help him win re-election, and helping them will hurt his chances of a second term.  Third, most US leaders would ask what the Iranian government has offered in exchange for an easing of sanctions: has the government of Iran scaled back support for anti-US Iraqis? Or take a more forgiving attitude toward Israel?  It is important for Iranians to remember that President Trump is still pretty popular in Israel, and he believes that many of his supporters in the US are very pro-Israel. So as long as Iran is a threat to Israel, he has little to gain by negotiating with Iran.

END