The Iran dilemma between war and diplomacy

The Middle East remains trapped between war and negotiation. The fact that Israel has not ended its attacks on Lebanon appears to have created a need for Iran to show that it is ready to walk away from the table. While the Trump administration struggles to keep Iran at the table, the escalation of mutual attacks has once again highlighted the fundamental contradictions in Washington's strategy. The Trump administration, unable to bring Iran to its knees by increasing military pressure, tries to return to this method as negotiations get stuck, but Iran's demonstration that it can continue the war also ties America's hands. On one hand, Trump, under pressure from pro-Israel groups domestically, does not want to be seen as a president who makes concessions to Iran, while on the other hand, he is aware that the diplomatic process is going nowhere. Whether it will be possible to break the cycle of war and diplomacy, which has so far failed to produce a final solution, remains uncertain.

IRAN'S LEBANON STRATEGY IN THE NEGOTIATIONS

Direct conflict with ballistic missiles, rather than war through proxies, has now become normal between Iran and Israel. The function of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Shia militias in Syria and Iraq, which for many years we defined as proxy wars, as a deterrent force against Israeli and American forces, is no longer valid. Israel not only strikes any target it wants in the region at any time, but also tries to move toward its goal of actual territorial expansion under the pretext of creating a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. Although Iran no longer possesses its former proxy power, it is trying to stand by Hezbollah in Lebanon by using its control over the Strait of Hormuz and America's dilemma in the negotiation process.

Instead of retreating despite military pressure, Iran is pursuing a riskier strategy that puts pressure on Israel. While the Trump administration tries to limit Israel's attacks in order to get results from negotiations and also tries to force Iran into a new agreement, it is clear that military pressure is not working. While the intensification of the Iran-Israel war increases the political cost for Trump, it also narrows the diplomatic space. Although Trump responds positively to Iran's effort to include the Lebanon equation in the negotiations, he struggles to control Israeli leader Netanyahu. In this situation, it can be said that Iran's strategy of raising the stakes has been successful in creating a crisis between America and Israel.

THE HORMUZ FACTOR

The Trump administration, which in recent days has used the rhetoric of a heavy response to Iran's downing of an American helicopter, not only limited itself to limited strikes but also described them as self-defense strikes in response to Iran's unnecessary attacks. It seems unlikely that these mutual attacks will evolve into a full-blown escalation process, because the Trump administration prioritizes reaching a deal. Raising the stakes around Hormuz has increased oil prices, but not above $100 per barrel. This indicates that the markets do not expect a full-scale war. This situation, which increases the effect of uncertainty on global economic balances, has not for now turned into a major global energy crisis.

From the perspective of American policy, although the global economic impact of Hormuz creates pressure to reach a deal with Iran, this priority does not hold the same critical importance for Israel and Iran. While Trump tries to reach a deal with Iran, Israel's insistence on continuing military operations both dynamites the peace table and increases economic and political costs. The Hormuz crisis shows that Trump's effort to pressure Iran into a deal has not yielded results. Israel, for its part, is focused on its priorities of redesigning Lebanon and preventing Iran from recovering. Iran, acting with a focus on showing that military pressure will not work, is sending the message that it will not abandon Hezbollah. Therefore, the economic loss created by the Hormuz crisis exerts meaningful pressure only on the Trump administration.

In this equation, the Trump administration appears trapped between returning to war and reaching a deal. Trump is aware that he cannot get what he wants by returning to war, and he also sees that he needs to apply great pressure on Israel to reach a deal. It should not be surprising if the state of deadlock and occasional military escalation becomes permanent from now on, because Trump would need to take political risks to apply full pressure on Israel. In an environment where Iran has already paid a heavy price, controls the Strait of Hormuz, and is not inclined to negotiate under pressure, Trump's negotiation strategy seems unlikely to produce results. On the other hand, a change in the political balances within Israel or the transfer of Congress to Democratic control in the November elections could create an opportunity for a new policy shift for Trump. Aside from taking steps to seize such an opportunity or producing "creative" formulas that break the mold in negotiations, it seems highly likely that the dilemma between war and diplomacy will continue.