Analysis of Iran's Geopolitical Situation

Well, let's bring in Lorenzo Camel.

He is a professor of international history at the University of Turin, and joins us

now from Arone- Rome. Uh, Professor, thank you for joining

us. The, the fact that they've not given no timeline here,

haven't identified

any other third party countries, uh, what do you take from this?

That's most likely, um, there is, uh, an impasse at the, at this

moment, but it's clear that history, uh, teach us that you

cannot win a war of attrition against geography.

So in this sense, uh, uh, it's clear that, uh, Iran, uh,

notwithstanding this sanction and so on, is aware of the fact that there's a

certain leverage. At the same time, it's also

evident that, uh, Iran cannot, uh, completely close,

uh, the Strait of Hormuz, and the US cannot fully open it.

So in this sense, third parties can play an important role.

And in this sense, Oman and Pakistan efforts to engage Iran,

uh, signal diplomatic attempts to stabilize

this region,

possibly using also US pressure on oil, uh, prices ahead

of the midterm election. Uh, but that said, I think

that the next step might be, um, quite clear in the sense

that, uh, if this sanction will, uh, really, uh, go ahead, as it

seems, it's most likely Iran will, uh, strike

Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It's always in the sense will

try to, uh, make ... fill the, the, the leverage to

which I was referring to, uh, before.

So, uh, Professor, you ... can we look at this from a historical

point

of view?

Do sanctions actually work? I mean, uh, ultimately Tehran has

been subject to quite high, uh, levels of sanctions in the last

few decades, and it's still s- bit of ...

uh, uh, a major regional actor here. What more can the US do?

And it takes ages for them to work, doesn't it historically?

Yes. It's not a really original, uh, solution.

Sanctions, uh, according to The Lancet, sanctions, uh, from the US, uh,

caused 38 millions death since 1970.

So, uh, in almost all cases, these were US unilateral sanction, meaning that

they were not imposed by the United Nations.

And the sanctions are never imposed against regimes that

are considered

useful, uh, to the US and their allies, and yet they are

presented as acceptable, uh, measure.

The first sanction that were imposed against Iran were in 1979,

uh,

so at the time the Iranian students stormed the US Embassy and took

diplomat, uh, hostages. So in the sense, that was the starting point.

But let's always remember that that was at the Iranian Revolution, not

the Islamic Revolution. It became Islamic at a later stage.

It was I- the Iranian Revolution and the most popular revolution in the

modern and contemporary history, more than the French

and the Russian Revolution.

And why it was so popular, that revolution?

It was so popular, so participated because, uh, the US

were interfering in this country.

So following the coup, uh, against Mossadegh and, uh, through

puppet regime of, uh, uh, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, uh, through

the, uh, torture chambers and so on and so forth, so all this pushed

millions of Iranians to, uh, strike back.

At the time when the sanctions were imposed, uh, Iran was the

first buyer of US weapons at the global level.

So if history teaches us something, is that, uh, if the US w-

want to replicate without adjusting some things the same pattern,

the result won't be so much different.

Professor, very quickly, the thing is this seems to be a further

escalation by the US. No doubt, uh, the Iranians will also up the ante,

and every

time this happens, the space for diplomacy

gets smaller and smaller, does it not? How does this end?

Yes. First of all, there are many actors that have a strong

interest in

closing the win- of, uh, the window of diplomacy.

So we have seen that there was a way, let's say the JCPOA, the

nuclear agreement, was certainly profitable.

Was certainly not 100%, uh, uh,

somehow, uh, so- solving all the problems, but still was a

pattern that w- would go in a direction.

Now we've seen that the Trump administration was very, very keen

in, uh, uh, unilaterally, uh, going out of that, uh, uh, agreement.

And why so? Because there is a strong interest,

a strong interest of having a

clear, uh, target. And of course, uh, the interest comes

also largely from Israel, so the Israeli have a strong

interest in that sense, uh, in, uh, uh, in, uh, attacking Iran and

having this clear enemy. Contrary to what many people thinks, uh,

sometimes to have clear enemies from Hamas in, uh, in

Palestine to the Iranian regime and many others is very

useful for certain actors. So diplomacy is something that is positive for

some, but for many political actors it's

actually something that might be seen as

dangerous.

Lorenzo Camel, thank you so much. Professor of International History at the

University of Turin there.