Geo-strategic considerations call for measured US approach on Iran

IT would be more than apparent that the growing tensions between Iran and the United States, in the aftermath of the recent attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, is a result of President Donald Trump's earlier decision to revoke the nuclear deal that his predecessor in office concluded with Teheran.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - that was also signed by America's leading allies and by China and Russia, and under which Iran agreed to freeze its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions - was never considered to be a perfect diplomatic deal. But the pact reduced the chances for a military confrontation between the Americans and the Iranians, and provided for a measure of stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's largest single source of petroleum. Revoking the JCPOA by the Trump administration, in the face of opposition by all the other signatories to the agreement, upset the balance of power in the region. The imposition of old and new economic sanctions as part of a policy of "maximum pressure" on Iran failed to get it to negotiate a new nuclear deal.

Instead, by employing its regional proxies, Iran has been testing American resolve by attacking US, Saudi and Israeli strategic targets. The latest salvo, on Saudi Arabia's two most vital oil facilities, cut its oil production by half and sent shock waves across the global energy markets. The White House insisted it has evidence that the Iranians were behind it. Notwithstanding his bellicose rhetoric, President Trump has taken what's considered a "measured approach" with Iran "to date", as the visiting Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison put it in Washington on Friday. Some of the American military hawks, including leading Republican lawmakers, have criticised Mr Trump for the cautious response to what the US administration describes as an Iranian military aggression, arguing that it was sending a message of weakness to Teheran.