'Trump's Aims In This War Have Been Inconsistent, Changing, Contradictory'

'What we have yet to see on either the US or the Iranian side is willingness to compromise on their ultimate demands and the flexibility to reach an agreement to end the war.'

With the Iran war bumping along into the second month, US President Donald Trump seems to be starkly alone having received no support from his European allies.

As Iran maintains a vice-like hold on the Strait of Hormuz, the war in Iran has essentially closed off oil tanker traffic through the Strait.

Striking a petulant note, Trump said that the UK and other countries in need of fuel should go to the Strait of Hormuz and 'just take it'.

It is still anyone's guess whether the US will mount a ground operation in Iran, but the USS Tripoli, believed to be carrying Marines, is in the area, according to the US Central Command.

"President Trump urgently needs to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to allow oil tankers and other shipping to pass safely through," says Shaul Bakhash, Clarence Robinson Professor of History Emeritus at the George Mason University in Virginia, USA.

Dr Bakhash, who specialises in the history of the modern Middle East with a special interest in the history of Iran, used to be a journalist in Iran 45 years ago before emigrating to the US.

The author of Iran: Monarchy, Bureaucracy and Reform Under the Qajars, 1858-1896; The Politics of Oil and Revolution in Iran; and Reign of the Ayatollahs: Iran and the Islamic Revolution, Dr Bakhash tells Swarupa Dutt/Rediff what lies ahead as the war in West Asia sees no sign of de-escalating.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has issued a fresh warning to citizens in neighboring West Asian countries to immediately vacate places where US forces are stationed saying it is their duty to eliminate US-Israeli forces.
There have been deaths due to missile debris in Qatar and Dubai.
Can the GCC Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries stay Iran's hand in escalating the war?
Do you feel Iran is making enemies with the GCC countries and will they in fact join America in fighting Iran?

Iran's aim in targeting the Gulf countries has been to widen the scope of the war and to increase pressure on President Trump and the US to end it.

However, in the process, they have alienated near-neighbours rather than cultivating them as friends; and reports are that the Gulf States now are urging the US to continue its operation against Iran until Iran is no longer a threat to its neighbours.

What happens if the Americans put boots on the ground on Kharg Island or one of the dozens of Iranian islands in the Gulf, which are important to securing safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz?

President Trump urgently needs to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to allow oil tankers and other shipping to pass safely through.

The steep rise in oil prices, disorder in oil markets, and the possibility of wider trade disruptions hurts his standing at home, especially with mid-term elections due in November.

It is preparation for possible military action to seize Kharg and three other strategic islands that explains why the US is preparing to send another 10,000 troops to the Middle East.

However, seizing the islands will not be a simple military operation. The US has superior military force.

But things could go wrong, American soldiers could die and the operation could prove costly -- all eventualities President Trump seeks to avoid. Hence, his preference for a negotiated settlement.

'American intelligence analysts agree that Iran posed no 'imminent threat to the US'

The theatrics of the then United States secretary of state Colin Powell, holding up a vial of what he claimed to be anthrax, led to the US-Iraq war and the search for the weapons of mass destruction. We know what happened with that.
Iran's Natanz nuclear facility was targeted by Israel in the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June 2025 and on March 21.
Was the nuclear bomb a reality for Iran? And if the bombing hadn't happened how far away was Iran in making the bomb?

Iran had a sufficient stockpile of highly enriched uranium to eventually make a bomb. But many more steps were necessary before it could achieve that goal.

Besides, much of the enriched uranium still remains buried under the rubble of the bombing to which Iran was subjected by the US and Israel during the brief 12-day 'June war'.

American intelligence analysts agree that Iran posed no 'imminent threat to the US' when the current war began.

Why hasn't the regime collapsed as Trump and his buddies in Jerusalem expected?
Or was the expectations of regime change a chimera, an excuse to simply destruct the Islamic regime so that it could no longer pose a challenge to Israel?

The regime in Iran has proven far more resilient than either the US or Israel expected. Although unpopular, it is deeply entrenched in the country.

By decapitating its most senior military and civilian officers, including the supreme leader, Israel has obviously weakened the regime and caused some disorder.

But Iran has managed to replace those lost and to continue the war.

Nor, for obvious reasons, have the people poured out into the streets as President Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on them to do.

The repressive apparatus of the Islamic Republic is ever present and the regime has made sure of that by deploying its fully-armed internal security forces on the streets of major cities to ensure there are no internal disturbances even as the war continues.

'Araghchi does not make the decisions.'

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been killed; high-ranking Iranian officials including security chief Ali Larijani, intelligence minister Esmail Khatib and the head of the paramilitary Basij force, Gholamreza Soleimani, have also been assassinated.
The US-Israel want Mojtaba Khamenei dead as well. Among the present leadership, is Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi an acceptable bet for the Americans?
Or is Reza Pahlavi an option for the Americans like his father, the Shah of Iran, was?

Araghchi has emerged as Iran's chief negotiator. But he reports to higher-ups; he does not make the decisions.

While we do not know how the decisions on the questions of negotiations and peace and war are being made in Iran at the moment, it is safe to say that the commanders of the Revolutionary Guard are playing a big role, along with the ppeaker of the parliament, (Mohammad Bagher) Ghalibaf, who is a former Guards commander himself.

The US has been looking for an Iranian leader who they can work with or who can serve as interlocutor. But it is not in a position to dictate who this person is. For the moment, it must continue to negotiate with Araghchi.

It is difficult to see how Reza Pahlavi can be an option until there is regime collapse in Iran, and there is no sign yet that this is happening.

How do you explain Iranian resilience, the fact that the Iranians are giving it as good as it gets despite years of harsh economic sanctions?
What is it in the Iranian psyche that explains their never-give-up spirit? Could it be attributed to the Shia spirit of martyrdom?

Although Iranian persistence has been striking, it is not correct to say 'Iranians are giving it as good as it gets'.

In terms of leaders lost, casualties suffered by both military men and civilians, military capabilities and infrastructure destroyed, Iran has suffered far more damage than it has been able to inflict on Israel or the United States.

It's one highly effective weapon has been the ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed.

But the cost at home has been severe. For Iran too, a negotiated settlement would have made more sense than war.

'You have the reasons why the US and Israel saw Iran as a threat'

If there is one key moment in Iranian history that has led to what is happening today would it be the nationalisation of Iran's oil industry by its then prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeg?

There is not usually single defining moments in history that lead to a single crisis or conflict.

The Islamic Revolution that led to the overthrow of the monarchy and its replacement by the Islamic Republic put in place a regime that was from the beginning hostile to the US and Israel.

Iran has called for the eradication of Israel from the Middle East.

Add to that Iran's use of proxy militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Gaza and Yemen and its use of these assets to attack Israeli and American interests in the region, plus its acquisition of a long-range missile capability and its nuclear activities, and you have the reasons why the US and Israel saw Iran as a threat and chose to attack it.

Donald Trump has said Iran is begging for a deal with the US. He has also said Iran wants him to be supreme leader. Is that believable?
What are your big takeaways from Trump's leadership in this war?

As many observers and commentators have noted, President Trump's aims in this war have been inconsistent, changing and sometimes contradictory -- everything from totally eliminating Iran's nuclear and long-range missile programme and ending its support for proxy militias in other Middle East countries to regime change.

What we have yet to see on either the US or the Iranian side is willingness to compromise on their ultimate demands and the flexibility to reach an agreement to end the war.

• THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT

Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff
Photographs curated by Manisha Kotian/Rediff