Nate Swanson spent nearly two decades in the U.S. government, including most recently as the National Security Council’s director for Iran. Days before the U.S. bombed Iran, Swanson published a piece predicting that Iran would do exactly what it has done should the U.S. attack.
That’s expertise President Donald Trump had available to him — until Swanson, an Obama holdover, was “forced out” of his post after a critical tweet from conservative podcaster Laura Loomer, Swanson said. Neither the White House nor Loomer returned a request for comment.
In his piece for Foreign Policy published Feb. 24, Swanson wrote that Iran would not capitulate after a bombing campaign, but rather escalate and “target global oil flows and international shipping, sending energy prices up and creating a serious political liability for Trump.” And indeed, Iran has made scattershot attacks on energy targets and others across the region, as well as throttling passage through the Strait of Hormuz by threatening attacks on ships.
In an interview with POLITICO this week, Swanson predicted that the Trump administration’s negotiations with Iran will not go well because both sides are “irrationally confident” in their positions. Neither side seems willing to find an offramp at this point, he said.
“I think the war is probably going to go on longer than anyone anticipated,” he said.
We spoke with Swanson this week about his predictions – and what he thinks comes next in the war with Iran.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Trump keeps saying Iran’s response has surprised him – that no one told him Iran would retaliate against regional energy infrastructure. How does that kind of comment from the president sit with you?
Obviously, it's not true. There are many people in the government who told him that there was high risk involved. He just chose not to listen to them. And as someone who was forced out of the government and wrote pretty much exactly what was fairly obviously going to happen, that doesn't sit super well.
What is your current take on the state of the war today?
I think both sides are probably irrationally confident in their standing, and so I think that's a little worrisome. So I think the war is probably going to go on longer than anyone anticipated.
Trump continues to believe that military success is leading to Iranian political capitulation, which isn't happening.
Let's remember that Iran has a vote and Iran is dead set on resisting and defying expectations. I also think they're kind of irrationally confident without an off ramp.
I think we're going to be stuck in this conflict longer and with likely escalations to come. I think the problem is the President is not going to get any off ramp, and I think we'll probably go through some of these ground operations he's considering.
So you're not convinced by these negotiation talks right now?
One, Iran has rejected them. It's the same thing that Iran rejected for previous iterations. They're feeling confident. They feel like they should be making the demands, not the U.S., and obviously the U.S. isn't adhering to that. So I don't think either side is ready to compromise.
You negotiated with the Iranians last year, representing the Trump administration posture at the time. What do you think are the most notable changes from either side since then?
On Iran's side, I think there's a real hardening coming out of the June war.
They didn't know what to make of Trump before that. I think they have hardened and shown less flexibility. So they haven’t really seriously engaged, it's more performative than serious. That's where Iran has shifted a lot since last June.
In the U.S, I think the shift came earlier. And I think they didn't know what they wanted out of a deal and I think the U.S. became more beholden to our domestic politics on this, and listening to outside influence so no enrichment, etc.
If you were still there at the NSC, what advice would you give to the president today?
You're not gonna be able to control the off ramp. Iran is not going to capitulate, so the idea that you're gonna be able to unilaterally set the off ramp isn’t going to happen. Either you’re going to have to escalate or you're going to have to compromise. And so those are just the two options.
Based on your previous experience, do you think there's any chance that Trump will be able to accept a deescalation?
It might be driven by markets ultimately. That seems to be the one indicator he cares about. So it depends on how much economic pain there is.
For the Iranians, what do you think they need to hear or to see before they actually start accepting a realistic off ramp?
I think they're pretty skeptical in general about an off ramp right now, I don't think they see it in good faith, especially the way it's being framed.
It's kind of another binary ultimatum. That's part of the problem. I don't think they like it to be public either. But substantively, I think they want two things right now. They want their new toll booth on [the Strait of] Hormuz. They want some kind of financial compensation to replace that, which is problematic, but may be done like we did last Friday, with sanctions relief.
The second thing is, they don't want to fight this war every six months. And so they're looking for some kind of guarantee that there won't be another iteration of this, which is hard to deliver.
What do you think the Iranians are learning from this conflict?
I think the previous thought process on this, and I'm not saying this is necessarily the U.S. government’s or Iran’s position, but to shut down the strait, you'd have to systematically do it and stop all traffic. I always thought that was unrealistic because you choke off your own lifeline. But what Iran has figured out, either intentionally or accidentally, is that they can control [what goes in and out of Hormuz] … so it only works for them.
And the second lesson is, for those who advocate strength over diplomacy, the Iranians feel pretty good about themselves right now.
Trump has been out there saying the U.S. is winning the war. Does that seem accurate to you?
It depends on what you're looking at. Iran is saying the same thing.
Clearly we are degrading the military. Clearly we have military superiority. No denying those facts.
Iran can define victory by survival. So far, they're doing it. So they're both right, in a way.
The Iranian people have suffered for decades under this regime. How do you think they are experiencing the war? How do you see the Iranian population being shaped by this?
It's hard to answer that definitively, not knowing what's happening, but my impressions are that you kind of have an equal split between anti-regime, pro-regime, and those who would want a better life.
And I think those who want a better life are staying on the sidelines right now, just because they don't want to die. And I don't think people are switching sides based on this war. If you were against the regime, you're still against the regime. If you're for the regime, you're still for. The big difference is those who did not feel strongly are just being marginalized and staying home.
The Iranian people are being used as a pawn in the attack. This attack was going to happen, either way on some level, and they were kind of used as a pretext and justification so they have the potential to be the big loser. It’s too early to say that definitively, if the regime were to fall, and that's not the case. Right now, it seems like the trajectory is not positive on regime change.
via Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/GxbcChT
