Iran war: The unnecessary war that strengthened Iran
In this unnecessary war with Iran, the US now has no choice but to negotiate and make compromises. Iran may even emerge with its regional standing strengthened. To go into the US-China summit with the best hand, President Trump needs to settle the Iranian question quickly. Academic Fan Hongda explains.
Back in February, US President Donald Trump announced plans to visit China at the end of March. However, the outbreak of war with Iran forced him to postpone the trip. It now appears the US president could make the visit in mid-May after weeks of delay.
Against this backdrop — and just a week before the anticipated US-China summit — the foreign ministers of Iran and China met face-to-face in Beijing on 6 May for the first time since the war began, as US-Iran negotiations remained stalled.
Iran war: the China dimension
It is evident that this tortuous US-China summit is closely related to the Iran war. After capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, President Trump launched military action against Iran in late February. If Iran were forced to surrender before this US-China summit, Trump believed he could then be more assertive in his dealings with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
... resolving differences with Iran through diplomatic means has become President Trump’s only option. In this situation, Washington must be prepared to compromise.
Yet I have never believed that Venezuela and Iran are the ultimate targets of the US. Bringing down these two countries is merely a necessary step toward Trump’s grander goal — great power competition.
Contrary to Washington’s expectations, however, the war not only failed to destroy Iran but also triggered growing opposition within the US itself. At the same time, the blockade and disruption of the Strait of Hormuz — which has inflicted significant costs on the global economy and energy markets — have fuelled widespread international dissatisfaction with the US.
Trump no choice but to compromise
Regarding the ongoing war, forcing Iran to surrender would require either the deployment of large numbers of ground troops or a far more stringent blockade, cutting off all of Iran’s external communication channels. Only then could Iran possibly be defeated.
However, both options are unacceptable to President Trump. The US cannot afford the potentially catastrophic consequences, while the international community would almost certainly oppose any prolonged blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Therefore, resolving differences with Iran through diplomatic means has become President Trump’s only option. In this situation, Washington must be prepared to compromise. Diplomacy inherently implies that both sides in the conflict need to make concessions.
In negotiations to end it, the US, as the instigator, should naturally be more proactive.
Frankly speaking, there is little basis in international law for depriving Iran of its right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, given that it remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nor can the US compel Iran to abandon or severely restrict its missile programme.
If the dispute is to be resolved through negotiations, the objective cannot be the complete surrender of one side. During his meeting with the Iranian foreign minister on 6 May, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated that China appreciates Iran’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, while also recognising its legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
For the international community, the greatest disaster brought about by this war was the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz — a double blockade by both Iran and the US. President Trump and other senior US officials have repeatedly claimed that the keys to an agreement with Iran are the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and assurances that Iran will not possess nuclear weapons. Yet the strait was already open before the US and Israel launched their war against Iran, while Tehran has long maintained that it neither seeks nor intends to possess nuclear weapons.
An unnecessary war that is strengthening Iran
From this perspective, this war was truly unnecessary. In negotiations to end it, the US, as the instigator, should naturally be more proactive. Of course, Iran, as the biggest victim of the war, must also demonstrate flexibility in these negotiations.
Ultimately, confrontation itself brings little benefit. The challenge lies in translating the dynamics of conflict into negotiated gains. After all, a country’s normal trajectory should be development rather than conflict, and stronger development often helps reduce the likelihood of future confrontation.
If Iran is able to bring the war to an end while preserving its current competitive advantages, it could be argued that the conflict has helped restore its position as a leading regional power.
This imposed war has, paradoxically, elevated Iran’s geostrategic position. Prior to the conflict, the steady weakening — and in some cases collapse — of its regional partners had left Iran at one of its lowest strategic points since the founding of the Islamic Republic.
If Iran is able to bring the war to an end while preserving its current competitive advantages, it could be argued that the conflict has helped restore its position as a leading regional power. Against this backdrop, Tehran would have strong incentives to pursue a swift resolution through diplomatic means with the US.
Moreover, Iran must not forget history. In 1982, Iran gained a certain battlefield advantage against the invading Iraq. Unfortunately, due to considerations such as internal political stability, Tehran decided to continue the war with Iraq. Now we know that the ongoing war with Iraq after 1982 was more detrimental than beneficial to Iran. At present, Tehran must avoid forcing other countries to choose sides between Iran and the US.
I believe that ending the war as quickly as possible, without accepting forced surrender, is Iran’s best option. While safeguarding its legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Iran can at least strive for the lifting of some sanctions and the unfreezing of funds seized abroad.
Iran should work with the US to restore normal operation of the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible. This is also the position of the Chinese government, and of course, a common concern of the international community.
... I have never doubted Beijing’s desire for mediation. However, successful mediation requires the right timing, such as a strong mutual demand from the conflicting parties. Now, that timing seems to have arrived.
China’s moment to play a bigger role
With both the US and Iran seeking to end the war in a dignified manner, and China having the willingness and capability to help them move closer, the Iranian foreign minister’s visit to Beijing and the upcoming US-China summit in Beijing are therefore particularly noteworthy.
From the moment the war broke out until now, I have never doubted Beijing’s desire for mediation. However, successful mediation requires the right timing, such as a strong mutual demand from the conflicting parties. Now, that timing seems to have arrived.
For President Trump, reaching an agreement with Iran before his trip to Beijing would be crucial, as it would ease his diplomatic positioning ahead of talks with the Chinese leader. If the US and Iran fail to reach a consensus before his visit, the US-China summit in Beijing is still expected to help contribute to broader efforts to ease tensions in the Persian Gulf region.
The Iranian foreign minister has informed Beijing of Tehran’s specific demands, and President Trump, who also desires an end to the war, will not hesitate to spend time discussing the Iranian issue with President Xi Jinping. On the issue of ending the war, Iran, the US, and China are broadly aligned on the need to seek a political settlement. Of course, this path remains fraught with difficulties. I hope the US and Iran will not let China’s efforts come to nought.