Iran-Israel conflict: The US could have averted this in 2003

People mourn the victims of an Iranian missile strike on the city of Tamra. AFP

A sixth round of US-Iran nuclear talks was supposed to take place in Oman last Sunday, but was cancelled owing to the surprise Israeli attack on Iranian targets that began two days earlier.

The collapse of these negotiations comes at a significant moment. In a few weeks, it will have been 10 years since the signing of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Notwithstanding its flaws, the deal worked. In 2018, during his first term in office, US President Donald Trump withdrew his country from the JCPOA. Mr Trump is now paying the price for this decision, inheriting a conflict in the Middle East that he could have prevented. His country also faces the possibility of being sucked into another regional war, something that his supporters were promised a second Trump administration would avoid.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, centre, greeting an Omani official upon arrival in Oman on May 11, when Iran and the US held their fourth round of nuclear talks in Muscat. EPA

The 2015 nuclear agreement, which was signed in Vienna after four years of negotiations, was a historic breakthrough for US-Iran relations. Despite warnings that it was an imperfect deal, it provided a potential opening for deeper engagement in the future.

Mr Trump sought to undo the diplomatic legacy of the preceding US administration, arguing that the JCPOA failed to prevent the development of Tehran’s ballistic missile programme and end its support for armed proxies across the Middle East. As of this year, Iran developed a ballistic missile force that has hit Israel numerous times, demonstrating the futility of Mr Trump’s objectives back in 2018.

Mr Trump wanted a grand bargain with Iran. The irony is such a bargain was on the table before – but was rejected. Iran itself proposed a deal in 2003, and it was Mr Trump’s Republican predecessor, George W Bush, who failed to pursue it. That failure led to Iran waging a low-intensity proxy war against the US in Iraq.

From Tehran’s perspective, particularly that of its hardliners, the US – from Mr Bush to Mr Trump – is fickle and cannot be trusted.

Following the September 11 attacks on US soil in 2001, Mr Bush included Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, in what he called the “axis of evil”. In 2003, US forces were at Iran’s border, having led the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. It was at this point that Iran offered the US a comprehensive negotiation proposal, with Tehran expressing a willingness to open its nuclear programme to inspections, work as a partner to stabilise Iraq, and co-operate against fighting Al Qaeda. Essentially it offered Washington then what Mr Trump would have asked Iran for on Sunday were it not for Israel’s attack.

The response to the 2003 offer from the office of then-vice president Dick Cheney allegedly was: “We don’t talk to evil.”

When Washington refused to engage with it through diplomacy and collaboration in 2003, Iran decided to undermine American interests in the region. One tool at Tehran’s disposal was the variety of Iraqi armed groups targeting US forces. Thus, the US had to tackle two distinct foes during Iraq’s insurgency: Al Qaeda in Iraq, which later morphed into ISIS, and a set of Iran-backed armed proxies.

Several of the militias active in Iraq today grew out of Iran’s low-intensity proxy war against US forces. Tehran’s rationale was that the Bush administration sought regime change and was considering bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The lesson from 2003 is that when the US failed to communicate with Iran through dialogue and diplomacy, Tehran chose to respond through its many armed proxies in the region. Despite some of these proxies having been considerably weakened, activating them could still be an option for Iran today, just as it was in 2003, along with its ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Mr Trump enabled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attack. According to the Washington-based Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, most estimates suggest that Israel has about 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads.

This arsenal serves as a deterrent to any hypothetical scenario in which Iran seeks to pursue a nuclear weapon. Israel’s unstated objection to the Trump deal was that it left Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact, giving Tehran the potential to challenge Israel’s unofficial nuclear monopoly in the region.

The 2015 deal was the first opportunity for US-Iran engagement that could have provided some stability to an unstable Middle East had it lasted longer. Today, Tehran is the first and only Middle Eastern state in the 21st century to strike Israel directly, launching a huge salvo of ballistic missiles from its territory, not once, but three times since October 7, 2023.

In April last year, Iran launched 300 drones as well as ballistic and cruise missiles towards Israel, some hitting the Nevatim air base that houses squadrons of US-made F-35 fighters. Last October, it fired 200 ballistic missiles towards Israel, some targeting the same military base and others allegedly coming close to the headquarters of Mossad, Israel’s spy agency.

As of last Friday, Iran continues to fire ballistic missiles at Israel in retaliation to its surprise first strike.

Israel, on the other hand, uses American aircraft and naval vessels to intercept projectiles, sometimes even needing direct US support. That has not only made Washington a party to an undeclared war with Iran since October 2023, but it has also made American forces vulnerable to retaliation.

The war that began in October 2023 has the potential to become America’s third conflict in the Gulf and Middle East since the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The anniversary of that conflict is approaching in August, marking 35 years of US involvement in the region. Without a return to diplomacy and de-escalation, Mr Trump may find himself embroiled in another direct conflagration in the Middle East.