Don't let hubris get in the way of ending the Iran war

Iranian leaders arguably overplayed their hand over the summer, attacking oil tankers even after signing a memorandum of understanding to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. If the U.S. hopes to end the conflict in the Persian Gulf, it should be wary of its own bout of hubris.

Iran acted because it feared losing leverage after the U.S. pressed ships traversing the strait to hug the Oman coast rather than submit to Iranian oversight. In response, the U.S. has strangled the Iranian economy by blocking oil exports and beefing up sanctions, even as it’s begun clearing a safe channel for shipping from other Gulf countries. While costly, the effort appears to be yielding results: According to JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., shipments of crude oil (including those using bypass routes) have rebounded to near pre-war levels.

That likely explains why Iranian negotiators are now seeking an accelerated return to the June memorandum, in which the U.S. promised to unfreeze Iranian assets and allow oil exports in exchange for reopening the strait and a return to nuclear talks. The White House is resisting, reportedly seeking more concrete promises on the nuclear program before releasing any funds. A third carrier group and thousands more troops are heading to the region as speculation grows that the U.S. may resume bombing after the midterm elections.

The standoff is understandable. Neither side trusts the other to live up to its commitments. Iran sees little reason to offer new concessions for benefits the U.S. has already promised. Meanwhile, the administration was heavily criticized for giving away too much in the original ceasefire agreement and would be blasted anew for simply returning to it, after enduring months of spiking energy costs and the deaths of another six service members.

White House officials should remember, however, that the status quo may be less sustainable than it looks. Every week that the war drags on further erodes U.S. munitions stockpiles, damages readiness around the globe and distracts from the Pentagon’s other pressing challenges. Fears of a return to fighting have kept energy prices high even as oil flows have begun to recover. And the complex naval operation enabling those flows can’t continue indefinitely.

The hard-liners who now dominate the Tehran regime believe they’re engaged in an existential struggle and have amply proven how little they care for the suffering of ordinary Iranians. They’re more likely to escalate by striking Gulf oil facilities than cave to economic pressure. A renewed U.S. bombing campaign similarly risks a wider conflagration that could see spiraling prices and long-term damage to the region’s energy infrastructure, not to mention additional U.S. casualties.

The U.S. would thus be wise to aim for improvements in a new ceasefire agreement, not the “unconditional surrender” the White House has at times demanded. Any arrangement for reopening the strait should comport with international law and leave no room for interpretation; it should also lay the groundwork for a governing authority backed by the UN’s International Maritime Organization that includes all Persian Gulf nations, not just Iran and Oman. On the nuclear front, Iran should at minimum let International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into the country to assess the state of its program and its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. It should also understand that any attempt to rebuild destroyed nuclear facilities or resume enrichment while longer-term talks are ongoing would be met with a military response.

For its part, the U.S. will need to provide financial incentives for compliance, although full sanctions relief should await a lasting nuclear pact. The political price will be less costly than continuing this ill-advised war.

This editorial was published by Bloomberg and distributed by Tribune Content Agency.