On March 11, the Crown Center for Middle East Studies hosted a teach-in event that provided context and analysis of the current conflict in the Middle East. Six scholars from the Crown Center participated in a discussion about military developments, Iranian domestic politics, Israel\u2019s strategic objectives and the economic consequences of the war. The event aimed to help the Brandeis community better understand the geopolitical implications of the conflict.<\/p>\n
Prof. Gary Samore (POL)<\/a>, Crown Family director and professor of the practice of politics, gave the opening remarks of the event. Samore served as former President Barack Obama’s White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction and President Bill Clinton’s Senior Director for Non-proliferation and Export Controls. Prof. Samore said that the discussion would focus on \u201cthe Israeli-American war against Iran, which is entering the 12th day at the cost of about 1,800 lives and considerable property damage, especially in Iran and Lebanon.\u201d He then introduced the event\u2019s speakers: Prof. Shai Feldman (POL), Prof. Naghmeh Sohrabi (HIST), Prof. Nader Habibi (ECON), Prof. Elizabeth Derderian (ANTH) and Dr. Kerem Ussakl. He proceeded to explain the successes of the military campaign and the uncertainty of U.S. war objectives.\u00a0<\/p>\n Prof. Samore explained that the U.S. and Israeli attacks seemed effective \u201cin terms of killing much of the Iranian leadership, including the Supreme Leader, eliminating Iran\u2019s air defense system, limiting Iran\u2019s missile and drone force and production capabilities, sinking much of the Iranian Navy and attacking so-called regime targets, which is the euphemism for IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] facilities and bases.\u201d He said that there are fewer attacks on nuclear targets and energy infrastructure in Iran, with the exception of Israel\u2019s attack on fuel depots in Iran. Prof. Samore stated that the attack caused a serious environmental problem,<\/a> and the United States government asked Israeli authorities to halt attacks on energy infrastructure.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, Prof. Samore said that despite the U.S. and Israel\u2019s military success, Iran can still launch drones and missiles, mainly targeting U.S. bases in the region. He added that Iran has some strategic advantages: \u201cThe one big card Iran still has is the ability to limit transit through the Straits of Hormuz, and that has led to a significant increase in oil and gas prices.\u201d<\/p>\n Concerning the U.S.’ final objectives, Prof. Samore divided them into three categories: regime change, the Venezuelan model and President Donald Trump unilaterally declaring the end of the war. He elaborated that at the beginning of the war, Trump hoped that the attacks would motivate the Iranian public to overthrow the Islamic Republic. When that didn\u2019t happen, the Venezuelan model was pursued, meaning that \u201cthe Islamic Republic would replace the Supreme Leader with a more compliant ruler. The system would remain in place, but the new Supreme Leader would be willing to acquiesce to the U.S. demands on Iran\u2019s nuclear missile program, support for proxies and so forth.\u201d In light of recent events, Samore explained that the third objective is for Trump to eventually declare the war to end, as the U.S. has significantly reduced Iran\u2019s nuclear missile drone capability. However, Samore concluded that the U.S. objectives may change depending on Iran\u2019s domestic scene, which Prof. Sohrabi elaborated on.<\/p>\n Prof. Sohrabi<\/a> is the director for research at the Crown Center and the Charles (Corky) Goodman Professor of Middle East History. She has written the book \u201cTaken for Wonder: Nineteenth Century Travel Accounts from Iran to Europe,\u201d and is currently working on a book about the history of the 1979 revolutionary generation in Iran. Prof. Sohrabi clarified the assumptions and misconceptions about Iran. \u201cIf there has been one constant in the past 47 years about Iran, it is that it is a system. And I use the word \u2018system\u2019 here very carefully. It is a system that first and foremost protects itself in its survival and it\u2019s resilient. That is the number one constant for the past 47 years,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Prof. Sohrabi also stated that there is a difference between the terms government, state and system; \u00a0these differentiations can explain the domestic scene in Iran. She provided an example from 1989, when Ruhollah Khomeini died, but the Islamic Republic persisted. \u201cBut it was not the end because the system keeps adapting to the moment. The system keeps transforming both itself, but in the relationship between state and society, which is a very important point,\u201d Prof. Sohrabi explained.\u00a0<\/p>\n After the panel elaborated on Iranian domestic politics, Prof. Feldman, <\/a>the founding director of the Crown Center and a professor of politics, described Israel\u2019s perspective. Prof. Feldman described Israel\u2019s three principal objectives, which are to \u201cdowngrade, if not obliterate, the Iranian capacity down the line to produce nuclear weapons,\u201d to \u201cdegrade as much as possible Iran\u2019s capacity to launch missiles against Israel\u201d and to \u201cdegrade the capacity of the other members of the so-called Axis of Resistance that were based on the support of Iran.\u201d He also added a fourth Israeli objective, which is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu\u2019s objective of regime change in Iran. Prof. Feldman said that for Prime Minister Netanyahu, the issue of who controls weapons of mass destruction is \u201ccritically important.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Prof. Feldman added that historically, Israeli objectives have been crucial in determining the state\u2019s course of action. In 1982, Israel, with the U.S. government, supported the regime in Iran. \u201cIt was called the Iran-Contra Affair, which had Israelis and Americans in the White House cooperating in a scheme that involved essentially delivering weapons to Iran and using the money that was obtained from Iran to support the Contras in Nicaragua that were fighting the Sandinistas and so on,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n He also mentioned that in recent years, Israel\u2019s national security strategy has been motivated by two drivers: the Holocaust and October 7. Prof. Feldman explained that the Holocaust is \u201csomething that Israelis grew up with in kindergarten, in elementary school, in high school and so forth. And a lot of it revolves around the never-again scene, and especially when you talk about unconventional weapons. We had the same thing with the first Gulf War when it was a danger of Iraq using chemical weapons against Israel.\u201d<\/p>\n Prof. Nader Habibi,<\/a> a Henry J. Leir Professor of the Economics of the Middle East, discussed the economic implications of the conflict and shared his perspective on how the oil and natural gas markets have changed globally amid the ongoing war. He said that the Persian Gulf region is a major supplier of both oil and natural gas, which has affected Europe and Asia. \u201cIndia and China are both dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf, from the Hormuz trade for about 40% of their supply,\u201d Prof. Habibi explained. He warned that there will be both short- and long-term implications globally. \u201cSo what is happening is affecting the global market in the short term. It\u2019s resulting in inflation, and it can also become stagflation if it continues for more than a month because of the impact on the cost of production,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Prof. Habibi also discussed how economic pressure could influence U.S.’ decision-making in the conflict: \u201cSo perhaps this growing pressure, in my opinion, might force the United States either to rapidly escalate the military operations in hope of destroying Iran\u2019s capacity to continue the blockade of Hormuz, or President Trump declaring some kind of victory and substantially de-escalating the conflict.\u201d<\/p>\n