Who is behind the aggravation of the conflict between Iran and the USA

There is a sequel

Trump imposed sanctions against the leadership of Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei "deprived of access to key financial resources."

US President Donald Trump at the last moment abolished a military blow to Iran. The latter was to be a response to the destruction of the American intelligence drone Global Hawk (Washington claims that he flew in the international airspace over the Ormuzian Strait, Tehran - that he crossed the airspace of Iran).

“We were in full readiness to strike retaliation for three different purposes when I asked how many people would die. “150 people,” the general answered. Ten minutes before the start, I canceled everything, the victims are disproportionate to the downed drone, ”Trump wrote on Twitter. A day later, Trump in an interview with the NBC television channel again said that he did not want a war with Iran, since this would turn out for Tehran "destruction that you have never seen before."

Although this time the situation did not end in the US military strike on Iran,

Obviously, the world balances on the verge of a serious military conflict in the key to global oil production in the region.

At the same time, a shot down drone (by the way, this is not a “toy” copter, but a device with a wingspan of 40 meters and worth $ 200 million) is only the last episode in a series of rather strange events.

On June 13, an attack on tankers (under the Japanese and Norwegian flags) intended for the transportation of oil products took place near the Ormuzian Strait. It was already the second sabotage of this kind. The first happened on May 12, then three tankers received damage.

It is interesting that in both episodes there was no spill of oil products or oil, so the maximum accuracy of the performers is obvious. Otherwise, a real environmental disaster could occur (let's recall at least oil spills after the Exxon Valdez tanker near the shores of Alaska in 1989). It is also important that during the second episode, the Japanese tanker was attacked just during the visit of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Tehran.

Given all the oddities of the latest events and their backstory, you can inclined to two main versions of the current exacerbation of the situation in the region.

The first version.

This version means the intentional provocation of the United States and neighbors in the region, primarily Saudi Arabia.

On the one hand, this may be Iran’s response to strengthen the US sanctions and the actual course of Washington to strangle the Iranian economy. The latter really happens: oil production due to sanctions in Iran fell to 2.3 million barrels per day (MBD) in May of this year against 3.5 MBD on average for 2018. Inflation rose sharply in the country, the already low standard of living of the population fell.

On the other side,

Iran, more precisely, his theocratic elite, has something to lose. Military conflict with the United States can be the end for the regime.

Iranian theocracy, despite the popular opinion of it as an exceptionally fanatical regime, has passed a significant evolution over 40 years in power. The current elites are interested in self -preservation, like any power. They are used to luxurious life in the fashionable areas of Northern Tehran, so they are no longer so radical. Fanaticism in many elite groups is already replaced by a more peaceful kleptocratic orientation. “Mulus’s wallet is wider than the abdomen” - as noted by ordinary people. Based on this, until recently, the main policy of Tehran was simple-to draw Trump in the hope of the election of the new president in 2020.

But although the provocations of Iran can ultimately cost expensive, the possibility of such a “breakdown” cannot be excluded. Especially considering other episodes less replicated in the media. So, the rebellious Husites sponsored by Iran in Yemen focused on attacks on Saudi Arabia. On June 20, they delivered a missile strike at the desalination station located in the Saudi province of Jizan. Prior to this, missile shelling was subjected to the airfield of the city of Abkh. The situation has aggravated in Iraq, where Tehran has a very serious influence on the representatives of the Shiite diaspora. On June 19, a quarter was fired in missiles in the Iraqi city of Basra, the center of local oil production. Moreover, the quarter is not easy: it contains the representative office of Exxonmobil and several more oil companies.

The second version is a provocation against Iran

The exacerbation of the proxy-warrior with the hands of the Husites and Shiites in Iraq, as well as the downed American drone-is just Tehran’s answer to a large-scale anti-Iranian provocation with tankers. Her first May episode with tankers mining in Fujira did not convince most global players of the guilt of Tehran. I had to repeat the provocation in June, but already with a more clear message: a clear indication of the Iranians.

Theoretically, Saudi Arabia could be the performer. The goal is to provoke a military blow to Iran.

The United States or Israel would hardly have gone to this, since they do not need an exacerbation of the situation in the region as a whole.

It is not necessary for Saudi Arabia. But the young Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Ben Salman already managed to “differ” in foreign policy with rude actions, at least the murder of a journalist Khashoggi. Therefore, it is also impossible to exclude such a version either.

Which version is true - we do not know yet, and perhaps we will never know. But another thing is important: whoever begins the conflict, it inevitably gives rise to the response actions of the parties, which in the end can stop controlling the situation. None of the parties will be able to constantly lose face, especially in a position where the resource of “soft” answers, as the same decision of Trump to cancel the military strike, will be exhausted. And then the unintentional consequences of the chains of both planned and random events can lead to a situation where military confrontations are inevitable. Internal logic can become dominant over the original positions of players - a situation well known in history.