Will Continued Provocations by the IRGC Lead Iran to the Brink of War with the U.S.?

The escalation of actions similar to the positioning of the missile frigate Mahaan within a thousand meters of a U.S. warship on Monday, April 23, could provoke a punitive response from the U.S. and make a widespread military confrontation in the Persian Gulf and even within Iranian territory inevitable—an event that some observers believe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) welcomes and that the ruling conservatives in Iran support. According to reports from defense sources, provocative movements by IRGC vessels in the Persian Gulf amounted to 23 incidents in 2015 and nearly 40 in 2016. The most serious example of actions previously described by American military personnel as 'unprofessional and threatening' occurred on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, shortly after the announcement of the implementation of the nuclear agreement between Iran and the U.S. and five other major powers. Two U.S. Navy warboats carrying ten sailors were stopped by IRGC vessels while patrolling waters near Farsi Island, between Kuwait and Bahrain, and were taken captive along with their crew to a base on the island. At the time of this incident, the aircraft carrier USS Truman of the U.S. Fifth Fleet and the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, along with two other cruisers, were present in the area. After learning of the incident, U.S. warplanes flew over Farsi Island, but as a result of repeated political contacts between the U.S. State Department and Iran and actions by the government in Tehran, the American sailors, including one woman, were released the next morning and returned to their unit. The media coverage of this action and the release of images and videos of the American sailors confronted the Obama administration with one of the most humiliating propaganda situations possible. Although Ali Khamenei appeared to accept the government's view on the unconditional release of the American sailors, he expressed his satisfaction with the IRGC's provocative action by awarding a medal of victory to Fadavi, the commander of the IRGC Navy. In another incident on September 5 of last year, seven IRGC speedboats approached the USS Firebolt, which was patrolling the area, and one of the boats stopped just 90 meters in front of the mentioned ship. To avoid a collision with the IRGC boat, the U.S. ship changed course. The IRGC claims that its naval actions are aimed at protecting borders, while their provocative operations in the Persian Gulf could compel the U.S. Navy, which possesses overwhelmingly superior firepower, to undertake retaliatory military actions. The IRGC presents the survival of the religious government as contingent on its military capacity and is determined to maintain its extensive economic interests and political position, which it has gained since the end of the eight-year war with Iraq. The leadership of the religious government, despite understanding the need for active IRGC support against internal threats, has divided government authority among seemingly different groups within the system out of fear of military dominance over the government. However, the IRGC leadership viewed Mohammad Khatami's government not as an ally but as an enemy and assesses Rouhani's government in the same light. In the IRGC's political equations, the nuclear agreement of Rouhani's government with the U.S. has been a significant step toward marginalizing them, and Rouhani's potential re-election in the May 19 elections could mark the beginning of the end of their economic empire and the destruction of their political base. If the conservatives and military candidates fail in the elections, this trend could only be disrupted by a significant military action abroad, which the IRGC appears to be contemplating. Aware of the political inclinations of the younger IRGC cadre, and to justify provocative actions within a more legitimate framework of 'the necessity to protect economic interests and increase political power share in the system,' IRGC commanders lean on the defensive theory that 'the U.S. cannot sustain a prolonged war with Iran and will be forced to retreat and fail in the event of an external war.' According to the IRGC's assumptions, if war is initiated by the U.S., it will end in favor of the military. The unspoken lines in this premise include direct control over society, homogenizing asymmetric branches within the government, and stabilizing the IRGC's position in the power hierarchy of the government. A sharp increase in crude oil prices and the collapse of the dollar's value, disrupting the global economy, are among other advantages that the IRGC's political designers consider. The simple reality is that the policies and perspectives of today's White House occupants differ from those of their predecessors. The Obama administration adopted a policy of 'strategic patience' regarding North Korea and a policy of 'avoiding military confrontation and diplomatic compromise with political Islam in hopes of gradual transformation of the government from within' towards the Islamic Republic. In 1983, as a result of an explosion in Beirut, for which Hezbollah, a creation of the Islamic Republic, was blamed, 220 American servicemen lost their lives, along with 21 other American civilians. Trump's selection for the U.S. Defense Department, James Mattis, is a Marine general whose colleagues say 'settling scores is in his blood.' Mattis wrongly or rightly states about the Islamic Republic, 'The Iranian government is not a state; it is a revolutionary motivation that has made chaos and disorder its belief and commitment.' He says, 'Iran is not an enemy of ISIS. I see ISIS as nothing more than an excuse for Iran's continued provocations.' Contrary to his campaign slogans promoting American isolationism, the Trump administration is composed of men with a mindset of resistance and intent to confront security crises at their source. By abandoning Obama's 'strategic patience' policy, the Trump administration forced North Korea to abandon its preparations for a new nuclear test, which was planned to coincide with Kim Il-sung's 105th birthday, and settle for conducting a failed missile test. The unprecedented invitation on Wednesday from the 'Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces' to one hundred senators to come to the White House to hear explanations about the situation in North Korea indicates the new administration's intent to showcase military power in resolving regional crises. Although the Trump administration's foreign policy regarding the Islamic Republic has not yet been clearly articulated, it can be inferred from the statements of the President, Vice President, and the Secretaries of State and Defense that the slogan 'all options are on the table' has become a principle in the Trump administration, with its direct implication regarding Iran being America's readiness to use military force. The Trump administration is aligned with Israel and the regional Arab coalition to cut Iran's interventions in the region and aims to achieve its new policy goals by pushing the IRGC out of Iraq, Syria, southern Lebanon, and Yemen, with military capabilities in mind. Through repeated provocations in the Persian Gulf and conducting missile tests at critical times, the IRGC, arguing that 'we will be the ultimate winners,' could lead Iran to the brink of war with the U.S.