Middle East experts assess latest escalation in U.S.-Iran conflict

Nick Schifrin:

Alan Eyre, is the U.S. government rightfully responding?

Alan Eyre, Middle East Institute:

I think the U.S. government unfortunately is strategically flailing. Yes, it is in fact the case that Iran insists on operational control of the Strait of Hormuz because it doesn't trust the U.S.

And so it sees control of the strait as strategic leverage. And that's why, when it looked at that very ambiguous article five of the MOU, it decided to press its point, because, for Iran, the whole game is strategic deterrence and preventing future attacks. And it thinks it can only do that by insisting it control the strait, which is why it was attacking those ships hugging the Omani coast that were trying to leave the strait with U.S. air cover.

Nick Schifrin:

As opposed to leaving through the strait closer to the Iranian coast, which is what the IRGC wanted them to do.

Alan Eyre:

Right. The new normal, right, which, again, we can talk about that.

So it's regrettable, but it's understandable, that once again both sides have fallen back to what they do best, Iran holding international commerce hostage, the U.S. doing strikes that are tactically efficient, but perhaps strategically insufficient.

Nick Schifrin:

Miad Maleki, the U.S. goal here, stated goal, is to try and prevent Iran from being able to attack these ships, to feel more pain if it decides to keep on attacking these ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Can these steps actually accomplish that?

Miad Maleki:

Well, I mean, it's very clear that Iran's ability to conduct these attacks has been on the decline. As a matter of fact, General McKenzie made it clear...

(Crosstalk)

Nick Schifrin:

Former Central Command commander who designed, at least in the last decade, some of these Iran war plans.

Miad Maleki:

Yes, sir.

He made it very clear that, based on the assessments of CENTCOM -- and I remember those -- the expectation was much higher as far as Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz or the scope of the attacks. So it really shows that CENTCOM has been able to really effectively degrade those operations by the Iranians.

Oil is flowing out of the Strait of Hormuz. There were -- U.S. energy secretary today said that 15 million barrels of oil is coming out of the Strait of Hormuz. There were oil tankers that were coming out of the Strait of Hormuz last night, kind of coming closer to the coast of Oman.

So, Iranians' ability has been degraded to really -- to do what they were able to do at the beginning. And I think if you continue with these strikes, you're going to see that Iranians kind of that -- the arm of their threat to the Strait of Hormuz being rolled back.

I think CENTCOM has the ability to do it. I think you're going to see these airstrikes continue to target those launching pads, naval assets, and then it could be possible that CENTCOM, U.S. Central Command or NAVCENT, they're going to get more involved in escorting the ships out of the Strait of Hormuz.

Nick Schifrin:

Alan Eyre, has Iran's ability to attack targets in the Strait of Hormuz been degraded?

Alan Eyre:

Yes, it has been degraded. I agree with my friend Miad 100 percent.

Has it been sufficiently degraded? No. Is it able to be sufficiently degraded, given how little military hardware it takes to threaten ships going through the strait? I don't think so. And, again, the U.S. isn't providing air cover. It's providing route passage and coordination.

So the question becomes can the U.S. maintain pressure by degrading these shore assets, rockets, missiles, fast attack craft, enough to allow enough oil and products to come through the strait to keep the world economy going, so that the blockade can take its chunk out of Iran and force Iran to bend the knee and accept moving its red lines?

I don't think so, because we reset -- we reset Iran's ability to withstand the blockade back to effectively zero by this period of the cease-fire. They were able to export and they are able to empty their storage.

Nick Schifrin:

Miad, let me just get both of you in the last minute-and-a-half I have on this.

The president has said this evening that Iran and the U.S. are talking again. That presumably means the U.S. negotiators. Quickly, you pointed out today you don't -- you believe that Iran is negotiating not to make a deal, but to manage pressure. Is there a deal that can be had? And, again, just quickly in the last minute that we have.

Miad Maleki:

Sure.

I mean, my friend Alan here is probably one of the best spokespersons that I have seen in U.S. government. And he's done a great job presenting the case for diplomatic rapprochement with Iran and cutting deal with this regime.

And I got to tell you, they had the best deal they could have gotten. As part of this MOU, they could have been selling oil now and getting paid in U.S. dollars, yet they chose a different path. So, yes, my point is the Iranian regime will never engage in negotiations to resolve problems.

They only engage to manage pressure and continue to export their revolutionary ideology and to compensate for the domestic failure by winning on this side of fighting the Great Satan and the West.

Nick Schifrin:

Yes.

Alan, just 20 seconds left on that.

Alan Eyre:

Yes, I agree with Miad. Iran loves to substitute process for progress when it comes to diplomacy. And I also agree that, at this point, it's probably too late for diplomacy, even if we had the best U.S. diplomats possible at table.

So we're in this sort of bardo and limbo zone of neither war nor peace. We will see what shifts.

Nick Schifrin:

Alan Eyre, Miad Maleki, thank you very much to both.

Alan Eyre:

Thank you.