Adjustment of the U.S. Defense Secretary's Position on Iran: Temporary or Permanent?

Radio Farda examines articles published about Iran on English-language websites. The following is a report published by Politico, summarized for Radio Farda's users: Politico writes that during Barack Obama's presidency, General James Mattis was the highest-ranking U.S. military official in the Middle East and supported military action against Iran for arming militias against American interests and troops in Iraq; however, now as Secretary of Defense under Donald Trump, he has adjusted his position to become one of the supporters of 'moderation' towards the Islamic Republic. The publication explains that last year, General Mattis, taking a stance contrary to Donald Trump's, defended the JCPOA and urged the U.S. President to adhere to this nuclear agreement. Given the presence of U.S. and Iranian forces in close proximity in Iraq and Syria, Mattis has so far refrained from adopting a hostile approach to counter Iran's influence and its proxy groups in the region. Politico states that there are reasons for this adjustment in position. Among these reasons, Mattis is facing more global challenges. Another reason is the completely opposite approaches of Donald Trump and Barack Obama towards Iran. Obama was reluctant to engage in military confrontation with Iran, but Trump has a completely different temperament. As a result, it is necessary for him to be cautious, and his stance on Iran and North Korea reflects this approach. Trump has a 'confrontational stance' towards Iran and the JCPOA, and last fall, his administration imposed new sanctions against Iran's missile program. He also emphasized support for protesters during the protests. Despite his shift in position, James Mattis cannot be considered a conciliator. Last year, he called the Islamic Republic 'the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism' and ordered an attack on the Shayrat airbase in Homs province, Syria, due to Assad's chemical attacks against his opponents. He also confirmed the attack and downing of an Iranian drone near U.S. forces in Syria. Nevertheless, he has tried to minimize the possibility of direct confrontation between the U.S. and Iranian forces and their proxy groups. Recently, in a press conference, General Mattis downplayed concerns about this 'land bridge,' stating: 'I don't think this land bridge has been established... Iranian-backed forces [in Syria] do not have unrestricted access across the border [to Iraq].' This approach of James Mattis was displayed in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, where, according to Politico, Iran may intend to establish a land bridge connecting Tehran to Baghdad and Damascus, and consequently to Hezbollah in Lebanon. In any case, with the decline of the war against ISIS this year, the Pentagon under General Mattis has defined a new role for U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, and serious confrontation with Iranian interventions in these countries is not unexpected. According to Politico, this means that if the right conditions arise, General Mattis will return to his hardline and 'hawkish' position. In this regard, Andrew Exum, a Middle East expert at the Pentagon during Obama's presidency, states that Mattis's cautious approach in the first year of Donald Trump's presidency is expected to turn into a hardline stance in the second year. One of General Mattis's concerns in the Middle East is the Islamic Republic's access to Syria. The fate of post-civil war Syria may be shaped by the bumpy negotiations in Geneva. Last November, during a trip to Europe, the U.S. Secretary of Defense spoke about the Geneva talks to resolve the Syrian crisis and the need to support them. During this trip, he stated for the first time that the U.S. military mission in Syria is 'beyond defeating ISIS.' According to Jeffrey James, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq during Obama's presidency, Mattis's statements indicate that the U.S. wants to support Kurdish and Arab fighters who have fought ISIS with U.S. support, as well as groups that have not aligned with the Assad regime and its supporter, Iran. Eric Edelman, a senior Pentagon official during George W. Bush's presidency, also tells Politico that one way forward for the U.S. is to continue using U.S. special operations forces and air power to support the same Kurdish and Arab militias currently fighting. However, this time the goal of strengthening these militias should be to combat Iranian-backed forces. On the other hand, U.S. forces entered Syria based on a law passed by Congress following the September 11, 2001 attacks, which allowed the U.S. military to fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Therefore, any military operations against Iran and its allies in Syria may contradict this authorization and may require another approval from Congress. Jeffrey James believes that thousands of U.S. and coalition military forces are present in Iraq, vulnerable to attacks from militias organized and armed by Iran. Therefore, the risk of any military operations supported by the U.S. to push back Iranian forces or those backed by Iran in Syria will be high. In conclusion, Jeffrey James states: 'Imagine if we had to leave Iraq and Russia and Iran claimed victory in Syria. This would be a major defeat for the U.S.' Thus, General Mattis faces a precarious and risky situation. The new White House approach towards Iran, an article by Ilan Berman, American Foreign Policy Council: Despite the decline of public protests in Iran, the White House's reaction has intensified. Last week, Donald Trump, while confirming the JCPOA for another three months and suspending nuclear sanctions against Iran, added other individuals and entities to the list of new U.S. sanctions against Iran. In this context, Sadegh Amoli Larijani, the head of the judiciary, was included in the list due to gross human rights violations in Iran. Institutions like the 'Supreme Council of Cyberspace' and the cyber arm of the Revolutionary Guards were also sanctioned for helping to restrict Iranians' access to the internet. These sanctions are noteworthy from three angles. First, the White House has remained true to its word. Amid the protests of the people in Iran, the Trump administration warned the Ayatollahs that suppressing protesters would have consequences. However, the Islamic Republic, through a series of coordinated operations, suppressed protesters and imprisoned 4,000 people, torturing and killing some of the imprisoned protesters. The new U.S. sanctions against Iran are a clear response to the repressive behaviors of the Islamic Republic. Second, this action by the U.S. indicates a shift in the White House's policy towards the Islamic Republic. Until now, the White House's attention to the fate of the Iranian people was limited. In fact, the Trump administration, with its comprehensive strategy regarding Iran unveiled this fall, had focused its main attention on the threats posed by the Iranian Republic at the regional level, and its repressive approaches within Iran were not a central focus. However, the imposition of new sanctions by the Trump administration against the Islamic Republic of Iran indicates that the White House has a new understanding of the potential of the Iranian people to bring about change in society and sees support for the opposition as essential. Third, the new U.S. approach regarding human rights violations in Iran aligns with the interests of the American public in this area. A poll conducted by the 'McLaughlin & Associates' firm in the U.S. supports this. This firm surveyed 1,000 eligible voters about their views on the U.S. government's verbal support for Iranian protesters and the imposition of new economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic aimed at preventing the arrest and killing of protesters. The results of this poll were unambiguous. The majority of respondents supported the new U.S. sanctions, and 63 percent endorsed pressure on the Islamic Republic for human rights violations. The results of this poll were consistent across both Republican and Democratic parties, indicating that applying pressure on Iran as 'the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism' is a point of consensus among all parties. Therefore, it is unlikely that the new U.S. sanctions against Iran are a one-time occurrence. It seems that following the recent protests of the people in Iran, the Trump administration has realized that the fate and future of Iran will be shaped in the streets of Tehran and other cities in the country. The Trump administration has also come to understand that when it comes to Iran's fate, America's most important role should be to prevent the Islamic regime from dispersing opposition forces.