In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Charles Kupchan analyzed the conflict in Iran while also commenting on the role of Donald Trump, tensions with European allies, and stressed that, despite harsh rhetoric, the United States will not leave NATO.
There are three scenarios to understand how the war in Iran could end: “The battlefield, the maneuvers of diplomacy, the spaces for a non-ambiguous agreement.” This is how Charles Kupchan, 68, a former adviser to Barack Obama and professor of international relations at Georgetown University, analyzes. In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, Charles Kupchan analyzed the conflict in Iran while also commenting on the role of Donald Trump, tensions with European allies and emphasizing that, despite the harsh rhetoric, the United States will not leave NATO.
After Donald Trump’s speech, what developments should we expect in the war in Iran?
Trump’s intervention was much anticipated, but ultimately failed to answer fundamental questions, starting with the likely duration of the war. It was what we in English call a ‘no burger’ (an idiom in English used to indicate that something is empty, without substance, disappointing, or of no real value).
Just bread?
Just bread. The consensus of public opinion on the attack on Iran was low from the beginning and now continues to fall, also because the price of a gallon of gasoline (equivalent to 3,785 liters) has exceeded four dollars. I think the war will take place on three levels. The first, of course, depends on what happens on the battlefield. The US and Israel have hit over a thousand targets, however, Iran’s ability to counterattack has not been eliminated. It is true that the number of missiles and drones launched by Tehran has decreased, but the possibility of hitting high-value targets has not decreased. It even seems that the Iranians have improved their target selection, so I think it will continue like this, with attacks from both sides.
Trump threatens to hit energy infrastructures…?
It’s a possibility that needs to be considered. At that point, there would be a dangerous escalation, because Iran would target desalination plants in the Persian Gulf and other facilities.
Several countries have offered to mediate. Could that be a possible path?
This is the second level: diplomacy. There are exchanges of messages between Tehran and Washington, although we do not know whether they are direct or indirect. Logic says that both sides have an interest in seeking a diplomatic solution.
Much will depend on the end of the war: will there be a deal or will Trump simply declare victory and stop the bombing?
Of course, and this is the third analysis. There will not only be the problem of removing the rubble and rebuilding the infrastructure. There could be a ceasefire or a peace with large gaps in uncertainty. Iran could still be able to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, or the flow of tankers could slow down. It is a problem that the international community has already raised.
What about the coalition promoted by the United Kingdom?
Only if it is launched after a diplomatic resolution of the war. That maritime segment is very difficult to control. The Iranians can easily attack ships from the coast, launch drones or scatter mines in the waters. On the other hand, I think that trying to reopen the Strait with weapons is a very complicated mission, perhaps beyond the capabilities of even a large military fleet.
In the background are the increasingly fierce tensions between Trump and European allies. Will the American president leave NATO?
It seems to me that Europeans are losing patience with Trump. The turning point was probably reached with his threat to invade Greenland. Then came the war in Iran, with its impact on the global economy. The message of the American president is essentially this: I destroy everything and you clean up.
However, Europeans would do well to take it seriously. But in the end, I do not believe that the US will leave NATO. Staying in the Alliance is also in their interest. And this is precisely what the attacks against Iran show: American bombers have made extensive use of European bases. (La Stampa)