The U.S. vs. Iran

The crisis began in December, when Iranian-backed militia groups fired a rocket into an Iraqi military base outside Kirkuk, killing an American contractor working there. In retaliation, the U.S. attacked five Iranian-backed militia groups—three in Iraq and two in Syria—in which about two dozen fighters were killed and many more wounded.

Because of that death toll, many Iranians and Iraqis viewed those strikes as out of proportion to the attack on the Iraqi base. Their outrage sparked large-scale demonstrations in Baghdad. The protesters, who were largely members of Iranian-backed militias, stormed the American embassy; they succeeded in breaching the compound’s outer walls and set fire to a reception building.

After the embassy attack, the U.S. killed Suleimani on Trump’s order. The U.S. says it was acting in self-defense.

“In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets,” Trump said. “But we stopped him.”

Almost everyone agrees that Suleimani had American blood on his hands. But there’s considerable disagreement about the justification for and the wisdom of killing a high-ranking Iranian leader.

“From Iran’s perspective, it is hard to imagine a more deliberately provocative act,” says Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group.

The crisis began in December, when Iranian-backed militia groups fired a rocket into an Iraqi military base outside Kirkuk. The strike killed an American contractor who was working there. In retaliation, the U.S. attacked five Iranian-backed militia groups. Three of them were in Iraq and two were in Syria. About two dozen fighters were killed and many more wounded in the attacks.

Because of that death toll, many Iranians and Iraqis viewed those strikes as out of proportion to the attack on the Iraqi base. Their outrage sparked large-scale demonstrations in Baghdad. The protesters were largely members of Iranian-backed militias. They stormed the American embassy. These protesters succeeded in breaching the compound’s outer walls. They also set fire to a reception building.

After the embassy attack, the U.S. killed Suleimani on Trump’s order. The U.S. says it was acting in self-defense.

“In recent days, he was planning new attacks on American targets,” Trump said. “But we stopped him.”

Almost everyone agrees that Suleimani had American blood on his hands. But there’s significant disagreement about the justification for and the wisdom of killing a high-ranking Iranian leader.

“From Iran’s perspective, it is hard to imagine a more deliberately provocative act,” says Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran go back more than 40 years, to the 1979 Iranian Revolution (see Key Dates, below). That’s when radical Shiite Muslims, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, overthrew Iran’s monarchy and imposed strict Islamic rule on what had been a Western-leaning country and a strong American ally. Then a group of militants seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

The U.S. and Iran have been at loggerheads ever since. Over most of the past decade, the tensions have focused on fears that Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons in defiance of international agreements. So the U.S. and its allies placed increasingly tough economic sanctions on Iran to punish it and to try to lure it into negotiations.

Those efforts culminated in a deal in 2015: Iran agreed to strict limits on its nuclear program and international monitoring in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, which had been stifling its economy.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran go back more than 40 years. The struggle began during the 1979 Iranian Revolution (see Key Dates, below). That’s when radical Shiite Muslims overthrew Iran’s monarchy. Led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, they imposed strict Islamic rule. Before that, Iran had been a Western-leaning country and a strong American ally. Then a group of militants seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

The U.S. and Iran have been in conflict ever since. Over most of the past decade, the tensions have focused on fears that Iran was trying to build nuclear weapons in defiance of international agreements. In response, the U.S. and its allies placed increasingly tough economic sanctions on Iran. These sanctions were a punishment meant to try to lure Iran into negotiations.

Those efforts led to a deal in 2015. Iran agreed to strict limits on its nuclear program and international monitoring in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. Those sanctions had been stifling Iran’s economy.

While many praised the deal for reducing tensions and curbing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, others in the U.S. and Israel thought the agreement wasn’t tough enough on Iran. So in 2018, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal. Instead, Trump imposed even tougher sanctions on Iran and made it much harder for Iran to sell its oil, which is critical to Iran’s economy.

Beyond its nuclear program, Iran has done other things to anger the West. It’s funded and armed Shiite militias in Iraq and other militant groups across the Mideast, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which the U.S. considers terrorist organizations.

Iran’s government—which has an elected president but is really controlled by unelected Islamic clerics—has also jailed hundreds of political prisoners and recently faced mass protests against the regime (see “Iran’s Internal Dissent”).

Many praised the deal for reducing tensions and curbing Iran’s nuclear capabilities. But others in the U.S. and Israel thought the agreement wasn’t tough enough on Iran. So in 2018, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal. Instead, Trump put even tougher sanctions on Iran. He also made it much harder for Iran to sell its oil, which is critical to Iran’s economy.

Beyond its nuclear program, Iran has done other things to anger the West. It’s funded and armed Shiite militias in Iraq and other militant groups across the Mideast, such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The U.S. considers both groups to be terrorist organizations.

Iran has an elected president, but the country is really controlled by unelected Islamic clerics. Its government has jailed hundreds of political prisoners. And recently there have been mass protests against the regime (see “Iran’s Internal Dissent”).

A lot happened very quickly. Iran called Suleimani’s killing an “act of war” and vowed to retaliate. In both Iran and Iraq, hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets to express their outrage at the U.S.

Iran and Iraq have a complicated relationship. They fought a brutal war against each other in the 1980s, but the two mostly Shiite nations have grown closer since a Shiite government took power in Iraq after the U.S. invaded in 2003 to oust Iraq’s longtime dictator.

A lot happened very quickly. Iran called Suleimani’s killing an “act of war” and vowed to retaliate. In both Iran and Iraq, hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets to express their outrage at the U.S.

Iran and Iraq have a complicated relationship. They fought a brutal war against each other in the 1980s, but the two mostly Shiite nations have grown closer since a Shiite government took power in Iraq after the U.S. invaded in 2003 to oust Iraq’s longtime dictator.

Within days of Suleimani’s death, Iraq’s parliament voted to expel U.S. forces from the country. Iran declared that it will restart uranium enrichment, effectively abandoning its end of the nuclear deal. And American troops were forced to halt operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in order to focus on protecting themselves from Iranian retaliation.

That retaliation came a few days later, when Iranians launched airstrikes at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. The U.S. says no Americans were killed.

The result of all this is a situation as volatile as it has been at any point in many years.

“We are at war with the United States,” said Iranian General Hossein Salami. “We do not consider the conflict with the United States over.”

Within days of Suleimani’s death, Iraq’s parliament voted to expel U.S. forces from the country. Iran declared that it will restart uranium enrichment, effectively abandoning its end of the nuclear deal. And American troops were forced to halt operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in order to focus on protecting themselves from Iranian retaliation.

That retaliation came a few days later, when Iranians launched airstrikes at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. The U.S. says no Americans were killed.

The result of all this is a situation as volatile as it has been at any point in many years.

“We are at war with the United States,” said Iranian General Hossein Salami. “We do not consider the conflict with the United States over.”

In a region already notorious for conflict, Suleimani’s killing substantially ratcheted up the tension level.

The situation is particularly delicate for countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), which sit directly across the Persian Gulf from Iran and have close ties to the U.S. Their vast oil and commercial infrastructure could be attractive targets for future Iranian attacks.

The threat against such sites was made clear last summer, when Iran launched a surprise drone and missile attack on two oil-processing facilities in Saudi Arabia, temporarily cutting the kingdom’s oil production in half.

Israel, which is surrounded by hostile groups that Iran has long supported, could also be vulnerable to new attacks.

“The entire region is on edge, as we are in uncharted territory,” says Taufiq Rahim, a Middle East expert at New America, a think tank in Washington, D.C. “There is no way to be ready for what comes next, because anything could be a target.”

The region is already notorious for conflict. Suleimani’s killing substantially increased the tension level.

The situation is particularly delicate for countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.). Both sit directly across the Persian Gulf from Iran and have close ties to the U.S. Their vast oil and commercial infrastructure could be attractive targets for future Iranian attacks.

The threat against such sites was made clear last summer. In a surprise attack, Iran launched a drone and missile strike on two oil-processing facilities in Saudi Arabia. The attack temporarily cut the kingdom’s oil production in half.

Israel is surrounded by hostile groups that Iran has long supported. That means that it could also be vulnerable to new attacks.

“The entire region is on edge, as we are in uncharted territory,” says Taufiq Rahim, a Middle East expert at New America, a think tank in Washington, D.C. “There is no way to be ready for what comes next, because anything could be a target.”

After a few very tense days in which the United States appeared to be on the brink of outright war with Iran, President Trump backed away from military conflict when no one was killed in the barrage of missiles Iran fired at U.S. troop bases. Instead, Trump said he would impose more economic sanctions on Iran.

But experts warned that while the threat of military action has subsided, the possibility of cyberattacks from Iran on U.S. infrastructure or banks remains high.

“Cyberattacks give the Iranians more room in the event they want to engage in a further response,” says Jamil Jaffer, the executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University’s law school.

While President Trump repeated his pledge that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, one result of the crisis seems to be the final collapse of the nuclear deal and of any possibility of negotiating a new, tougher deal.

“Any chances for American diplomacy with Iran are dead for the duration of the Trump presidency—if not longer,” says Barbara Slavin, who directs the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C.

The other big question is whether U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, where they’ve been helping Iraqi forces to fight the remnants of the Islamic State. The Iraqi vote to expel U.S. troops isn’t binding, and it’s not clear whether Iraq’s government will try to carry it out.

Whether American troops remain in Iraq or leave, some experts say that the recent scuffle with Iran shows how U.S. power has diminished in the region.

“The current brouhaha isn’t the start of the decline of American influence in the Middle East,” says Stephen Biddle, a professor of international affairs at Columbia University, “but it will certainly accelerate it.”

There were a few very tense days in which the United States appeared to be on the brink of outright war with Iran. Then, President Trump backed away from military conflict when no one was killed in the barrage of missiles Iran fired at U.S. troop bases. Instead, Trump said he would put more economic sanctions on Iran.

The threat of military action has died down, experts say. But they warn that the possibility of cyberattacks from Iran on U.S. infrastructure or banks remains high.

“Cyberattacks give the Iranians more room in the event they want to engage in a further response,” says Jamil Jaffer, the executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University’s law school.

President Trump has repeated his pledge that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. But one result of the crisis seems to be the final collapse of the nuclear deal. And there doesn’t seem to be any possibility of negotiating a new, tougher deal.

“Any chances for American diplomacy with Iran are dead for the duration of the Trump presidency—if not longer,” says Barbara Slavin, who directs the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C.

The other big question is whether U.S. troops will remain in Iraq, where they’ve been helping Iraqi forces to fight the remaining ISIS fighters. The Iraqi vote to expel U.S. troops isn’t binding, and it’s not clear whether Iraq’s government will try to carry it out.

Whether American troops remain in Iraq or leave, some experts say that the recent scuffle with Iran shows how U.S. power has weakened in the region.

“The current brouhaha isn’t the start of the decline of American influence in the Middle East,” says Stephen Biddle, a professor of international affairs at Columbia University, “but it will certainly accelerate it.” 

With reporting by The New York Times.

With reporting by The New York Times.