The blog post summarizes the geopolitical context surrounding rising tensions between the United States and Iran following the U.S. killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. It discusses how both countries have legitimate strategic interests in the region, particularly regarding Iraq and its oil industry, and calls for diplomatic efforts to address historical grievances and consider each country's core security concerns to prevent further escalation.

1. People attend a funeral procession for
Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani,
head of the elite Quds Force, and Iraqi
militia commander Abu Mahdi al-
Muhandis, who were killed in an air strike
at Baghdad airport, in Tehran, Iran
January 6, 2020. Official Khamenei
website/Handout
Blog Post by Amy M. Jaffe, Author
January 8, 2020
Iranian Interests, Iraqi
Oil, And The U.S.
Response
My grandmother had a saying: “Think before you speak.” The saying,
said to me and my brothers as children, was intended to help us avoid
mindlessly blurting out something we would later regret. I cannot help
thinking of my grandmother’s useful adage in watching the news
regarding the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States.

2. For days, I have been trying to craft a blog on the topic of the current
state of conflict across the Middle East. My efforts started before the
Christmas holiday when I was trying to update an opinion article I
published in the Houston Chronicle in early December about how
widening political unrest across the Middle East and beyond could lower
the operational resilience of oil producers within the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to respond to unexpected events
that could hit global oil markets in 2020.
But events on the ground have been fast moving and while this basic
point about oil is obviously relevant, it seems now any geopolitical
analysis has to start with a better understanding of the geopolitical
conditions emerging in the aftermath of the U.S. attack that killed
Iranian Commander Qasem Soleimani.
Every nation has core strategic interests that do not vary with the
personalities leading them or the nature of the ideological bent of a
particular ruling elite. We often forget that in U.S. foreign policy and it
leads us to mistakes.
Iran has a core national interest in making sure there is not a brutal
ISIS-led state on its border. That goal doesn’t conflict with U.S.
interests. While the escalating events of recent days shows that the

3. United States needs to reflect on the costs that Iran can impose on
American interests in an escalating conflict, Iran’s leaders also need to
reflect on how their own activities in Iraq and Syria contributed to the
outgrowth of ISIS. It is very unclear if destabilization of other
neighboring governments is a core national interest of the Iranian
population. Proxy militias on the ground can, in fact, have diverging
interests from their sponsors.
My point is that if strategists don’t ask the right questions, leaders won’t
get the right answers.
Iran, like any other nation, has many core interests and one of those
core interests is to make sure that the government, state military, and
militias of Iraq are not a direct threat to Iran’s citizens. It is reasonable
for average Iranians, even those who do not support the foreign policy
of their government, to have this concern. It is a basic concern that
would not go away, for example, even if there was a shift in the Iranian
government that ushered in a more benign foreign policy. “Regime
change” will not alter this Iranian concern vis a vis Iraq. Any successful
U.S. policy must recognize that all nations have core strategic interests
that go beyond ideology and often stem from geography. The Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) news outlets have been running
commentaries blaming Iranian President Hassan Rouhani for pushing

4. the country from “a state of peace to a state of war.” The tone of the
commentaries, especially in light of subsequent events, could suggest
that the IRGC faction believed an escalation in conflict was on its way.
But IRGC’s tactical aims and motives shouldn’t cloud analysis of Iran’s
geography and how it shapes legitimate core interests of the country.
Any negotiations to conflict resolution must consider this.
The next step to analysis is to consider the momentum of history.
Looking at the conflict between the U.S. and Iran, it is tempting to give
in to the sentiment that history is destiny. Americans watched in horror
as Iranian protesters and militia leaders stormed the U.S. embassy in
Baghdad at the end of December in an event that appeared intended to
rekindle historical memories of the frightening capture of U.S.
diplomats in 1979. But yet another tragedy is that the subsequent U.S.
attack on Soleimani is almost certainly reigniting renewed anger that
links to the historical overthrow of Iranian nationalist Prime Minister
Mohammad Mosaddegh, who famously led resistance to foreign
interference in Iran’s oil industry and political affairs back in 1950s.
Conflict resolution efforts must address these historical pathologies
head on or risk failure.

5. Iraqi anti-government, nationalist protestors have called for an end to
rampant government corruption and a major revamp of the current
system of political patronage that enabled Iran’s interference in Iraq’s
every day affairs. Iran benefits from overland trade with Iraq that more
recently included complex energy arrangements that help Tehran
obviate some of the economic pain of the tightening vise of U.S.
sanctions. Protests briefly halted production at the smaller Nasiriyah oil
field in late December and anti-government demonstrators had also
blocked roads to major southern oil fields such as the Majnoon field
and even the giant Rumaila field, preventing oil workers from reaching
certain sites for a brief period of time. There has been an ongoing risk
that some oil workers could consider joining anti-government
demonstrators. Unrest seems almost certain to delay Iraq’s plans to
implement its South Iraq Integrated Project, a vast water and
infrastructure scheme needed for future expansion of Iraq’s oil
production and export capability.
Thus, there are multiple ways the current U.S.-Iran-Iraq situation could
bring about a fresh disruption in oil supplies. Any escalation in ongoing
violence inside Iraq constitutes one clear risk to Iraq’s oil exports. If
diplomacy aimed to diffuse the situation falters and U.S.-Iraqi relations
further sour, the United States could also decide to impose restrictions

6. on Iraqi oil exports if there is evidence that Iran is a direct beneficiary
of Iraqi oil trade. Finally, there are risks to the oil industries of other
regional players such as Saudi Arabia, which has already suffered
attacks linked to Iran. Proxy battles that involved sabotage, cyber, and
bombings of Saudi and Iranian oil installations go back two years.
Foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Sudan,
Somalia, Eritrea, and Djibouti met in Riyadh to discuss cooperation in
counter threats to shipping along the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The
United States and Britain are increasing their military presence to
protect shipping in and around the Strait of Hormuz.
Any diplomatic effort to diffuse the current U.S.-Iranian situation must
carefully consider the path forward for Iraq. There is no question that
the United States must take into account its broader regional interests,
but any solution will need to consider Iran’s core security concerns
rather than focusing heavily on its ideological bent. Iraq’s leaders must
also weigh the somber reality of the country’s neighborhood.
Withdrawal of U.S. advisors from Iraq won’t solve the country’s
multitude of problems since there is a long line of other players in
addition to Iran ready to fill any vacuum as events on the ground in
Syria and Libya demonstrate.

7. It is high time to end the repeating patterns of death and destruction
that have characterized the geopolitics of oil in the Middle East. A
younger generation of Iranians, Iraqis, and other youth from across the
region deserve better. Hopefully, the brinksmanship of the last few days
will give all parties involved the incentive to negotiate for different
future in good faith.
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.