Iranians gather in support of Palestine (Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
A recent edition of The Tehran Times carried a warning: “If the Zionist regime’s war crimes and genocidal attacks against civilians in Gaza do not come to an end, the region will move towards making a big and decisive decision.”
The message was delivered by Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, Iran’s foreign minister, upon meeting his Turkish counterpart in Ankara. Modestly, he names the “region” as the protagonist, instead of his chiefs in Tehran. With Iranian-backed Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran’s Houthis in Yemen already launching rockets and missiles into Israel, it only remains for Iran’s militias in Syria and Iraq to add their bit.
And, yet, it seems like only yesterday that Jake Sullivan, Biden’s National Security Advisor, was working hard to further improve relations with Iran, after successfully obtaining the release of five detained US-Iran dual citizens in exchange for $6 billion in frozen Iranian funds. His relentless romancing, despite the failure of every attempt to kiss and make up with Iran’s angry prelates since 1979, makes me think that the Biden Administration has failed to absorbed the implications of Iran’s current stance: it holds itself so utterly secure that it can unleash its proxies to attack US allies and troops whenever it wants to.
Israel can defend itself. But the US-Kurdish garrison in North-East Syria, as well as America’s remaining friends in Iraq, Kurdistan, and, most important, in the Arabian Peninsula, are all threatened and continue to be — unless Biden switches gears to deter Iran instead of trying to appease it.
The President’s backbone is not in doubt. Biden’s immediate reaction to the October 7 assault and Hezbollah’s threat to launch its vast arsenal of rockets and missiles was to send the US Navy’s most advanced aircraft carrier and six guided-missile warships to the eastern Mediterranean, as well as a second aircraft carrier task force and US fighter bombers to a base in Jordan.
But in Biden’s foreign-policy team, only Secretary of State Antony Blinken shares his determination to switch from polite conciliation to genuine deterrence — and that is not enough. The US is a Presidential republic, and nothing can be done unless White House staffers translate Presidential choices into well-defined policies that are properly structured to secure Congressional backing. It is, therefore, most unfortunate that both Sullivan and the Obama holdovers who staff the White House are still locked into the former President’s ill-concealed desire to distance the US from Israel and Saudi Arabia, and to reconcile with Iran.
Until June this year, Obama’s all-powerful Mr Iran, Robert Malley, remained in the Biden White House, in charge of Iran policy and at the centre of Washington’s pro-regime lobby. Brought up by a hard-Left and bitterly anti-Zionist American-Jewish mother and Egyptian-Jewish father in Paris, both of whom viewed the US as the source of all evil and Israel as the Devil, and who found congenial employment for the Arab-nationalist Algerian dictatorship, Malley was always viewed with suspicion by those who knew him. Yet because he had been Obama’s college roommate, he was untouchable — until, at long last, lowly security clerks caught him mishandling classified information.
Malley, of course, is an extreme case, but other Obama staffers still in the White House (no choice there: the Bidenites are dead or long retired) are still locked into their resentment of Israel and its friends, which most unhappily for them include the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. More damaging than their ineffectual anti-Israel stance is their hostility to the principal US ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, and its current ruler, Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS). As liberals, one might have expected them to appreciate the liberalisation of Saudi social life swiftly accomplished by MBS, but instead they remain fixated on the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Even Biden’s reconciliation trip to Jeddah, following America’s silence after Iran attacked Saudi oil installations, was almost wrecked by White House officials who dragged their feet in preparing the agenda, as if they wanted the President to punch MBS instead of shaking his hand (they eventually settled on a “fist bump“).
Needless to say, it was the CIA’s always-wrong “Middle East experts” — they know neither Arabic nor Persian — who leaked the intelligence that accused MBS of orchestrating Khashoggi’s murder, while their attitude to Israel has always been extremely negative. Meanwhile, the CIA’s contribution to the formulation of a new Iran policy is limited by its outrageous refusal to have even one undercover officer in the country (“too dangerous”), so that it has no way of ensuring that its “assets” — Iranian informants recruited abroad — are actually reliable. (It is only in the movies that the CIA really does what it is supposed to do; its Hollywood outreach is indeed very impressive.)
These are not merely administrative impediments. Only the President can authorise a new policy to finally stop Iran’s armed provocations. And to do that, the President needs an entire team of officials to work out all the angles and supervise coordination with allies such as India, which needs Iran’s cooperation to access its air bases in Central Asia.
To avoid endless re-staffing delays, the only possible solution would be to bring some of Austin and Blinken’s most competent subordinates into the White House, where they can formulate a new Iran policy and coordinate it with both America’s allies and their own State and Defense colleagues. As for the policy’s substance, it is perfectly clear what needs to be done: starve the beast by intercepting oil exports on the high seas. With no export pipelines, the two million barrels a day that Iran’s degraded industry can still export — it was twice that under the Shah — must all leave on tankers that can be easily identified and intercepted, ostensibly to verify that no weapons are carried to supply Iran’s militias. Inspections can be very time-consuming, and few tanker-owners will take up Iran contracts once inspections start. This should not lead to an oil shortage or any price increase, because other producers — from Saudi Arabia to those in West Africa — can easily replace Iran’s oil.
True, there is no possibility of UN Security Council approval, but that is also true of support for Ukraine and Israel. Whatever the complications, it is surely better to hold up tankers than start another war in a vast country where an easy victory would be followed by unending insurgencies, even if it seems certain that a majority of Iranians would love to live in post-Ayatollah Iran. Instead, under the tanker-delay scenario, it would be enough to reduce Iran’s ability to support murderous militias by diverting oil export revenues from the needs of Iranians at large (chants of “no [money to] Hezbollah; no Palestine” are heard at every protest in Tehran). And this is an especially good time to apply economic pressure: the increased prices of food — partly because of the Ukraine war — are already causing real deprivation and even outright hunger.
Such a policy would need to be sustained for several years. The results, though, would surely be worth it: the restoration of American ascendancy in the region and the vigorous assertion of its interests, very possibly including the promotion of the two-state solution that many in Israel already support. It would be a monumental feat, even if other problems emerge along the way. What the US cannot do is to keep appeasing Iran — a nation that continues to attack its allies, its interests and not infrequently its troops.
Professor Edward Luttwak is a strategist and historian known for his works on grand strategy, geoeconomics, military history, and international relations.
ELuttwak 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt’s really nice to see even-handed and down to earth coverage of this topic for a change. Whenever I see it come up in western media, it’s inevitably hysteria about the lack of progress and/or fear-mongering about what the Serbs are up to (with the standard implication being that it’s probably something evil).
Self-determination (i.e. the right to secede) based on ethnic composition of a region is a double-edged sword and the fact is, Pandora’s box has already been opened in Kosovo, it’s just that the West is pretending that it hasn’t.
With Kosovos independence, the question now becomes “why can’t Serb (or whichever) majorities in a given region secede, provided they want to?” and the answer is usually because it doesn’t suit the West and as such there is no answer that is both consistent with western rhetoric and aligns with their goals, so there are few solutions to be had (just look at Bosnia). In the interest of fairness, I will add that the local actors in this case don’t make it easier, for obvious reasons.
However, this is still very much a case of cake-ism, to borrow a phrase, and once again exposes the hypocrisy of western diplomacy and the so-called “rules based international order”, since the rules are there for others to follow and the West to ignore.
Yes, refreshingly balanced and well researched article. Agree, about Pandora’s box already being opened, and the dangerous precedent being set. There are many such regions where ethnic and/or religious majority in the region is different to the whole country, and being somewhat unsatisfied with their status. Their independence movements have gained new energy and legitimacy with Kosovo development. It is indeed frequently pointed out whenever regional tensions arise. I guess that’s the reason certain countries (e.g. Spain) are very reluctant in recognition. Calling for international laws and norms is hypocritical. If majority of region democratically decides for independence should it be stopped? What if it’s Catalonia, or Scotland or Northern Ireland or Crimea or California… Pandora’s box indeed.
Self-determination need not be a problem. A decade ago, Czechoslovakia split into Czech Republic and Slovakia, along the pre-WW I historical border between the Austrian and the Hungarian halves of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Both have reasonably prospered and neither has been “behaviourally conspicuous”.
Sorry, your example is totally incommensurate with this scenario.
I agree. The point of my comment was to reflect on: Why?
I agree. The point of my comment was to reflect on: Why?
Sorry, your example is totally incommensurate with this scenario.
Exactly. Kosovo good, Abkhazia/Ossetia/Crimea/Occupied Palestine bad. Funny old world
Nice take. Of course, it was Tito who largely shifted the ethnic balance in Kosovo toward Albanian, though without the unintended consequences. A quick but thorough review of the role of Albania in various destabilising events and activities in northern Europe signals that peeling off Kosovo to hurt Russia is not exactly helping Europe. But our American ally doesn’t much care about European interests.
Your answered your own question.
“With Kosovos independence, the question now becomes “why can’t Serb (or whichever) majorities in a given region secede, provided they want to?”
Without going back to history, which you know just as well, Albanians were and still are majority in Kosovo. Serbs were not and still are not. And if you want a minority of 3-5% to be allowed to secede in Kosovo then allow Albanians in Serbia, N. Macedonia, Monte Negro too. While you are at it, let people of Sanxhak and Vojvodina, too!
Yes, refreshingly balanced and well researched article. Agree, about Pandora’s box already being opened, and the dangerous precedent being set. There are many such regions where ethnic and/or religious majority in the region is different to the whole country, and being somewhat unsatisfied with their status. Their independence movements have gained new energy and legitimacy with Kosovo development. It is indeed frequently pointed out whenever regional tensions arise. I guess that’s the reason certain countries (e.g. Spain) are very reluctant in recognition. Calling for international laws and norms is hypocritical. If majority of region democratically decides for independence should it be stopped? What if it’s Catalonia, or Scotland or Northern Ireland or Crimea or California… Pandora’s box indeed.
Self-determination need not be a problem. A decade ago, Czechoslovakia split into Czech Republic and Slovakia, along the pre-WW I historical border between the Austrian and the Hungarian halves of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Both have reasonably prospered and neither has been “behaviourally conspicuous”.
Exactly. Kosovo good, Abkhazia/Ossetia/Crimea/Occupied Palestine bad. Funny old world
Nice take. Of course, it was Tito who largely shifted the ethnic balance in Kosovo toward Albanian, though without the unintended consequences. A quick but thorough review of the role of Albania in various destabilising events and activities in northern Europe signals that peeling off Kosovo to hurt Russia is not exactly helping Europe. But our American ally doesn’t much care about European interests.
Your answered your own question.
“With Kosovos independence, the question now becomes “why can’t Serb (or whichever) majorities in a given region secede, provided they want to?”
Without going back to history, which you know just as well, Albanians were and still are majority in Kosovo. Serbs were not and still are not. And if you want a minority of 3-5% to be allowed to secede in Kosovo then allow Albanians in Serbia, N. Macedonia, Monte Negro too. While you are at it, let people of Sanxhak and Vojvodina, too!
It’s really nice to see even-handed and down to earth coverage of this topic for a change. Whenever I see it come up in western media, it’s inevitably hysteria about the lack of progress and/or fear-mongering about what the Serbs are up to (with the standard implication being that it’s probably something evil).
Self-determination (i.e. the right to secede) based on ethnic composition of a region is a double-edged sword and the fact is, Pandora’s box has already been opened in Kosovo, it’s just that the West is pretending that it hasn’t.
With Kosovos independence, the question now becomes “why can’t Serb (or whichever) majorities in a given region secede, provided they want to?” and the answer is usually because it doesn’t suit the West and as such there is no answer that is both consistent with western rhetoric and aligns with their goals, so there are few solutions to be had (just look at Bosnia). In the interest of fairness, I will add that the local actors in this case don’t make it easier, for obvious reasons.
However, this is still very much a case of cake-ism, to borrow a phrase, and once again exposes the hypocrisy of western diplomacy and the so-called “rules based international order”, since the rules are there for others to follow and the West to ignore.
The Serbs remember Muslim domination, it’s baked into their DNA. Same with the Hungarians. The far West — Britain, Sweden etc. — thinks that Islamization is the woke thing, the fashionable thing. The Serbs and the Hungarians and the Macedonians know better. Albanians enjoy one of the most broken cultures on the planet; the Serbs want nothing to do with it and they are prudent not to.
The Serbs remember Muslim domination, it’s baked into their DNA. Same with the Hungarians. The far West — Britain, Sweden etc. — thinks that Islamization is the woke thing, the fashionable thing. The Serbs and the Hungarians and the Macedonians know better. Albanians enjoy one of the most broken cultures on the planet; the Serbs want nothing to do with it and they are prudent not to.
As with N.Ireland, how can a critique of this Kosovo conflict be significant … if it has NO mention of religion?
Bingo.
Bingo.
As with N.Ireland, how can a critique of this Kosovo conflict be significant … if it has NO mention of religion?
Fascinating how concepts of human rights, war crimes and self determination are wholly dependent on what serves the interests of various powers.
So, non Serbian parts of Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Kosovo, one rule.
East Ukraine Russians, Kosovo Serbians or Kurds in Turkey, too bad.
And imagine if anyone other than China were doing what they are with the Uighurs.
Fascinating how concepts of human rights, war crimes and self determination are wholly dependent on what serves the interests of various powers.
So, non Serbian parts of Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Kosovo, one rule.
East Ukraine Russians, Kosovo Serbians or Kurds in Turkey, too bad.
And imagine if anyone other than China were doing what they are with the Uighurs.
Oh what tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
NATO started a completely illegal war against Serbia in 1999, based on blatant lies, and goaded a terrorist-ridden Kosovar cabal to declare independence, even though the EU-mediated deconfliction administration had pledged not to change the political status of Kosovo. Kosovo survives today purely on the graces of the US, and is home to one of the largest US bases abroad, Camp Bondsteel.
Russia warned NATO and the EU not to create an international-law precedent, but NATO and the EU ploughed ahead anyway. The result is that many NATO countries do not recognise Kosovo, and NATO’s Kosovo caper served Russia as international-law template for the reabsorption of Crimea.
The latest crisis developed when NATO leveraged the EU to put pressure on Serbia to make Serbia give up its neutral stance between the EU and Russia, and join the EU’s economic war sanctions against Russia.
So – yes, no doubt, if there were a willingness on the side of the puppet masters to not only allow a resolution, but knock some heads together locally to discourage grandiose notions of past glories and heady revanchism, then the issue could be resolved. Unfortunately, the EU has decided to abandon its decades-long track record of burying centuries-old grievances under a blanket of unideological prosperity, strong minority protection and freedom of movement, and has instead become a blatantly militarised extension of a Neocon-weaponised NATO, so that solution, that brought the formerly fascist military dictatorships Greece, Portugal and Spain into the European mainstream, is no longer available.
We’ve created quite a mess. Mr. Borrell would do well to worry more about the NATO boar he is allowing to rampage in our European garden than about the peaceful jungle outside our borders.
Oh what tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
NATO started a completely illegal war against Serbia in 1999, based on blatant lies, and goaded a terrorist-ridden Kosovar cabal to declare independence, even though the EU-mediated deconfliction administration had pledged not to change the political status of Kosovo. Kosovo survives today purely on the graces of the US, and is home to one of the largest US bases abroad, Camp Bondsteel.
Russia warned NATO and the EU not to create an international-law precedent, but NATO and the EU ploughed ahead anyway. The result is that many NATO countries do not recognise Kosovo, and NATO’s Kosovo caper served Russia as international-law template for the reabsorption of Crimea.
The latest crisis developed when NATO leveraged the EU to put pressure on Serbia to make Serbia give up its neutral stance between the EU and Russia, and join the EU’s economic war sanctions against Russia.
So – yes, no doubt, if there were a willingness on the side of the puppet masters to not only allow a resolution, but knock some heads together locally to discourage grandiose notions of past glories and heady revanchism, then the issue could be resolved. Unfortunately, the EU has decided to abandon its decades-long track record of burying centuries-old grievances under a blanket of unideological prosperity, strong minority protection and freedom of movement, and has instead become a blatantly militarised extension of a Neocon-weaponised NATO, so that solution, that brought the formerly fascist military dictatorships Greece, Portugal and Spain into the European mainstream, is no longer available.
We’ve created quite a mess. Mr. Borrell would do well to worry more about the NATO boar he is allowing to rampage in our European garden than about the peaceful jungle outside our borders.
I remember several hundred Serbs being kicked out of Kosovo.
Just see the facts. Also mass graves on SERBIA . Then you will undestand why NATO attacked serbia.
I remember a million of Albanians being kicked out of Kosovo! I remember several thousands of Albanian women and children being raped, killed by Serbian neighbours and militia. Dead bodies found in Serbia’s rivers and other part of Serbia. I still hear that many Albanian mothers are waiting to know for the bodies of their disappeared kids, buried in Serbia.
Do you still want me to go on and tell you what I still remember?
Just see the facts. Also mass graves on SERBIA . Then you will undestand why NATO attacked serbia.
I remember a million of Albanians being kicked out of Kosovo! I remember several thousands of Albanian women and children being raped, killed by Serbian neighbours and militia. Dead bodies found in Serbia’s rivers and other part of Serbia. I still hear that many Albanian mothers are waiting to know for the bodies of their disappeared kids, buried in Serbia.
Do you still want me to go on and tell you what I still remember?
I remember several hundred Serbs being kicked out of Kosovo.