What the US could do in Iran, and what India will watch out for

The most brutal crackdown has been witnessed since last Thursday, as more people poured out on the streets and the Iranian regime responded with force and communications blackout.

The big question remains around what options the US administration can exercise — and what impact will that have on India’s diplomatic approach towards a possible escalation.

The first option will be diplomacy. Iranian officials are known to be extremely adept at reading crisis situations and engaging with their counterparts, even in the most hostile circumstances. That was on display when the US under the Barack Obama administration had tightened the screws through massive sanctions on Iran, and then the Iranian regime decided to negotiate the JCPOA nuclear deal.

The Iranian regime may have many chinks in its armour and many divisions and factions within their fold — the moderates looking for engagement and diplomacy, while the conservative hardliners are much more confrontational. But what all of them agree on is the survival of the Iranian regime, helmed by the Supreme leader. So, negotiating and talking their way out of tight spots has been one of the strengths of the Iranian regime.

The US too is focussed on the diplomacy bit, going by what has been conveyed in the public domain.

On Monday, after Trump said Iran’s leadership had been in touch to negotiate, the administration suggested it was again leaning towards diplomacy. “Diplomacy is always the first option for the president,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. The messages Iran is conveying “privately” are “quite different” from what the regime is saying publicly, “and I think the President has an interest in exploring those messages”, she said. But Leavitt added that all other options remained on the table. The President is “unafraid to use military options if and when he deems necessary,” she said. “And nobody knows that better than Iran.”

If the diplomatic option fails, the US may consider some other steps.

Analysts and experts say that the Trump administration, along with Israel, could target Iran. These targets could include Iranian military and Revolutionary Guards’ infrastructure, command and control centres, and warehouses of weapons and supplies used by the government and its militias.

A higher threshold will be attacks on senior Iranian leaders — as was witnessed during Trump’s first term, when the US killed commander Qassem Soleimani. The US President had last year said he could also target Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Whether that is possible or not, Iran’s conventional military weakness stands exposed with last June’s 12-day war, where the American and Israeli air strikes decapitated their air defence systems. The Israeli air strikes made it much easier for the American B-2 bombers to strike the heavily fortified Iranian nuclear facilities, buried deep under the ground.

The US Central Command, which looks after the Middle East region, has already stationed six naval vessels in the region, according to UK daily Financial Times.

USS Mitchell and USS McFaul are in the Arabian Gulf, while the USS Roosevelt is in the Red Sea. These are three Arleigh Burke -class destroyers — multi-mission ships equipped for anti-air, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare.

Another three — USS Canberra, USS Tulsa and USS Santa Barbara — are also in the Arabian Gulf, and these are three independence-class littoral combat ships optimised for a variety of roles in coastal waters, such as mine, anti-submarine and surface warfare.

So, with five US naval vessels in the Arabian Gulf, it is an aggressive posture towards Iran, taking advantage of the US-friendly neighbours Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan.

But all these options mean that the US has to operate away from the territory of Iran.

The conventional wisdom is that an American intervention leading to an outcome — where the Iranian regime is ousted — cannot be guaranteed by air strikes by fighter aircrafts or firing from naval vessels. A senior diplomat said, “It is very difficult to do a regime change from 30,000 feet above.”

So, that leaves the next option of putting American boots on the ground.

US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro earlier this month, with minimum damage to American forces. Parallels are being drawn on whether the US can pull off a Maduro-like capture in Iran. Given the strong command and control structure of the Revolutionary Guards, this would be extremely difficult, without facing a strong pushback in terms of casualties.

A US-Iranian combat forces face-off on the ground, and casualties on both sides, might mean a full-scale invasion and a war if the US needs to establish its dominance in that case.

An invasion into Iran and getting entangled into a protracted conflict will meet with a definite pushback from Trump’s MAGA base, which has been against US misadventures in the past in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In case of an attack by the US on Iran, much like the Afghanistan war, India will be impacted again in its immediate neighbourhood.

Diplomatically, India will find it difficult to support the US actions if there are air strikes and military intervention inside Iran.

Economically, Delhi has almost zeroed out the oil import from Iran, and it is a bit player in the Indian energy basket now because of the US sanctions from Trump 1.0.

Another complexity will occur if Iran chooses to attack — for its survival — against US bases in the region, in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar among others.

In that event, if the West Asian region goes into turmoil, Delhi will be on tenterhooks as it has stakes in the peace and stability in the region. It has about 8-9 million Indians living and working here. Delhi also relies heavily on the region for its energy needs, with almost 60 per cent of its energy needs coming from here. Any instability in the region threatens India’s energy security and that would have an inflationary impact.