The escalating confrontation between Washington and Tehran has raised questions over whether the US policy of responding to Iran piecemeal can continue.
Recent hints about alternative options suggest that the US administration is now searching for a “Plan C”, after the military option, Plan A, failed to achieve its objectives and the memorandum of understanding, Plan B, failed to take off before President Donald Trump declared it over, along with the ceasefire.
The options now being discussed, whether based on information or on assessments by observers, are not new. The administration had previously set them aside in the period leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding.
Among them are military control of the Strait of Hormuz, seizing Kharg Island, Iran’s principal oil export hub, and targeting vital sectors of the Iranian economy.
Washington chose instead to impose a naval blockade on Iran rather than take control of the strait, but that alternative proved insufficient to “liberate” Hormuz.
The Option of Seizing Hormuz Returns
The renewed escalation has brought the possibility of taking control of the strait back into discussion, with stronger advocacy for such a move than before.
“We have the military capabilities necessary to control it,” said General Frank McKenzie, former commander of US Central Command.
The idea of targeting Kharg Island has also returned to the debate, although with somewhat less urgency.
The White House, however, has not yet abandoned its policy of responding “forcefully” to any obstruction of navigation through Hormuz, even though it knows that such a response is neither sufficient nor guaranteed to resolve the problem.
Tehran, according to US assessments, is working to “institutionalise its control over the strait”, thereby turning it into an instrument for “dominating the Gulf region” and a means of ensuring Iran retains the role of a “player” in the international economy.
Iran’s control has taken various forms, ranging from blocking passage through the strait to temporarily reopening it while selectively targeting certain tankers.
The Alleged Plot Against Trump
This Iranian approach prompted a US military response, which Washington intensified following reports of an Iranian “plot” based on “Israeli intelligence”.
The alleged plan was said to have targeted President Trump following the conclusion of last week’s NATO summit in Ankara and reportedly led to the president’s aircraft being changed for his return journey from the summit.
Questions were raised about the source of the account, but the administration treated it seriously.
That seriousness was reflected in Trump’s announcement of the “end” of both the ceasefire and the memorandum of understanding.
The episode appears to have further hardened Trump’s position and strengthened the inclination within his administration to change the rules of the confrontation.
Washington Still Lacks a Clear Alternative
Despite this, the US administration remains uncertain over which course to pursue.
Trump cancelled the ceasefire and the memorandum of understanding but kept negotiations alive.
He left the diplomatic door open, albeit narrowly, reflecting the absence of a suitable alternative, if not the absence of a preferred one.
A return to full-scale war does not appear viable given its political costs and the failure to achieve its objectives.
Criticism also continues to mount, including from some Republicans, over the United States’ involvement from the outset in what they describe as a war based on miscalculations.
Warnings are still being issued against sinking deeper into the conflict.
“There is no military solution to this dispute,” said James Jeffrey, a former US ambassador to several capitals in the region.
Other experts, including Richard Haass, have expressed similar views, although calls for the opposite approach have become louder recently, particularly following the reported plot against Trump.
Time Is Becoming a Major Constraint
The greatest pressure facing the administration is time.
Less than four months remain until the US midterm elections.
At the same time, there is growing speculation that divisions among Tehran’s new leadership could intensify.
This assessment has partly been based on Supreme Leader Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei’s absence from the official funeral of his father, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, although other explanations for his absence have also been suggested, including medical reasons.
In any case, the White House is likely once again searching for a formula that could provide an exit after its hopes in the memorandum of understanding faded.
It quickly became apparent that the agreement contained almost everything except genuine understanding.
Trump had been expected to offer some indication on Sunday of the alternatives he was considering towards Iran, even if only indirectly, during his media appearances.
Instead, he avoided discussing Iran or other political issues and devoted the day, as he put it, to revisiting memories of his friend, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
Graham, who had called for a decisive military resolution against Iran, died that morning after suffering a sudden heart attack.
As is often the case when the picture surrounding a confrontation becomes this confused, the prospects for a breakthrough fall sharply.
