Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Creating a strategic alliance to stop Iran in its tracks

By Alon Ben-Meir - posted Wednesday, 27 March 2024

Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the US has not developed a long-term strategy toward Iran but instead has made tactical moves to deal with the various conflicting issues with Tehran as they arose.

Conversely, from the time the clergy assumed power, Iran has developed a long-term strategy limited not only to staying in power but also to becoming the region's hegemon without inviting major military retaliation by either the US or Israel on Iranian soil. It is time for the US to develop an effective long-term strategy to stop Iran in its tracks by taking specific measures that do not purposely seek regime change but may well precipitate such a change.

The US strategy should be based on the creation of a crescent of allied states stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean, where the US would expand its military-to-military, economic, and political cooperation with Middle Eastern countries, including the six Arab Gulf countries, Jordan, Israel, and Egypt. The missing link is the "State of Palestine," which I will address below.


The realization of the US geostrategic objective will a) freeze Iran's regional ambitions and its influence over the Arab states and b) prevent Iran from expanding its military cooperation with Russia and commercial ties with China, thus limiting their influence and imprint in the region to counterbalance the US' near-dominance. To that end, the US must take several geostrategic measures as the building blocks that would lead to the establishment of the allied crescent.

First, the Biden administration must address Iran's objective to oust the US military presence in the Middle East, which would allow it to have a freer hand in challenging and intimidating US allies in the region and enable it to increase its influence and prestige. The Biden administration ought to disabuse Tehran of the notion that the US' so-called pivot to the East is not and will not happen at the expense of reducing the American military presence in the Middle East, by continuously expanding security collaboration with its allies throughout the region.

President Biden's decision to dispatch two aircraft carriers to the eastern Mediterranean in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war was a wise strategic move that sent a clear message to Iran, Russia, and China that the US is determined to keep the Middle East under direct American sphere of influence both politically and militarily.

Second, Iran finances and provides military hardware and training to its 'axis of resistance,' including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, to attack US military installations. Indirect talks between the US and Iran in Oman on January 10, focusing on the increasing threats posed by the Houthis to Red Sea shipping routes and the attacks on US military bases in Iraq and Syria by militia supported by Iran, failed to reach an agreement. While Iran proclaimed to have no control over the Houthis, its representative at the talks stated that his country could use its influence to ensure that all attacks would stop, provided that the US arranged for a ceasefire in Gaza.

Being the main supplier of military hardware to the Houthis, including missiles and drones, it is clear that Iran can, if it chooses, stop the Houthis from attacking ships in the Red Sea and must do so unconditionally; otherwise, it will be held responsible and bear severe consequences for its refusal to stop the Houthi attacks.

Iran uses these groups to do its dirty work. American retaliation against these groups is a price Tehran is "happy" to pay as long as it doesn't suffer casualties of its own and prevents a direct American attack, especially on its nuclear facilities and other major military industry complexes. The Biden administration must warn Tehran that given its undisputed military and economic support of its militia, the US will view future attacks on any American military or civilian assets as an assault by Iran and that the US will not hesitate to directly attack Iran's much-prized assets.


Third, Iran does not want to start a war with the US, knowing full well that the US, with its far superior military power, could inflict a devastating blow that could bring down the regime. In this regard, the Biden administration should not state time and again that the US does not want to wage war against Iran. Even though the US has no plan to attack Iran and presumably wants to mitigate Tehran's concerns about regime change, reiterating this repeatedly makes the clergy feel more secure in their power, and thus, they will continue to destabilize the region through their proxies, "the axis of resistance," and their direct interference in the internal affairs of several Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and do so with near-impunity.

Fourth, Iran views Israel as the obstacle in its quest for regional hegemony. Knowing, however, that Israel is more powerful militarily and enjoys US security guarantees, Iran seeks to neutralize Israel's nuclear capability by reaching its own nuclear threshold. In this regard, the Buden administration should warn Iran that while the US is still open to negotiating a new nuclear deal, which would lead to a more amenable and constructive relationship, Washington will not stay idle should Iran produce an operational nuclear weapon. This would also alleviate the concerns of those Israelis who are genuinely worried about Iran's nuclear program.

Fifth, in spite of the fact that Hamas, Iran's second most important proxy after Hezbollah, stands to potentially be crushed by Israeli forces, Tehran does not want Hezbollah to engage Israel militarily on a large scale but only show some solidarity with Hamas by firing short-range rockets on Israeli targets on a limited basis. Iran wants to prevent Israel from invading Lebanon and inflicting massive losses on Hezbollah because it wants to reserve Hezbollah's military capability for a different contingency, especially if Iran is directly hit by the US and or Israel. The US should make it clear to Iran that the continuing supplies of weapons to Hezbollah, including drones, is viewed as threatening and provocative and will result in imposing additional crippling sanctions.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Alon Ben-Meir

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy