The danger of terror and the security imperatives in the Middle East have changed dramatically since the shock of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which derailed the framework of the Nixon Doctrine. This working doctrine was premised on the fact that the Shah of Iran’s regime and Israel would be the USA’s ‘guardians of the Gulf’.

Soon thereafter, two seminal events soured US-Iran relations forever ~ the 444-day (1979-81) American Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, and the bombing of the Beirut barracks in 1983, killing as many as 241 US Marines and 58 French troops. The massacre was perpetrated by a group called ‘Islamic Jihad’ with its roots in Tehran. Portents of the Iranian revolution spilling over to other countries in the region, with the clerics intent on ousting the despotic dictators and monarchies, prompted the US to back Saddam Hussein in the localized Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

Although America was aware of Saddam’s totalitarian personality, the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and a tendency to deploy ‘dirty’ weapons was reflected in the covert support to Iraq in the form of crucial information, materials and diplomatic cover to spite Iran This reaffirmed the maxim, ‘enemy’s enemy is my friend’!

Later, the changed ground realities, brought about by Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait and the ‘first Gulf War’ made Iraq the principal spoiler in the region in the 90s. The developments did little to change the fate of Iran, as it continued to reel under USsponsored sanctions and isolation. That the political winds in Iran were running counter to the radicalisation in the Middle East, was studiously ignored.

The 1990’s saw the emergence of the moderate and reformist regimes of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami; yet the US maintained its belligerent posture against Iran. In the new millennium, the landmark event of the 9/11 tragedy confirmed the revised epicenter of violent intolerance.

The 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates and Lebanon. Ironically, given the sectarian angularity these principal stakeholders and their ideologues (Al Qaida), were fundamentally and vehemently opposed to the Iranian state.

Yet the Iranian fixation persisted in the West, and the-then US President, George W Bush, in his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002 chose to include Iran in his triad of ‘axis of evil’ (besides North Korea and Saddam’s Iraq). Even though the phenomenon of Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden had gripped the terror industry, George Bush still insisted that Iran “aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror”!

Subsequently, the mutations of the terror groups and their configurations shifted power from Al Qaida to ISIS, as the principal terror organisation. Like Osama bin Laden, the ISIS leader Abu Bakr-al-Baghdadi maintained his vitriol against Iran and on 7 June 2017, the Caliphate claimed responsibility for the attack on the mausoleum of Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran, leaving 16 dead. Ironically, Iran was the first country to pledge and commit itself to attack ISIS.

The exploits of Iran’s Quds Force and its maverick battle-heroes like Major General Qassem Soleimani have been a decisive factor in turning the tide against ISIS. Along with the Kurdish Peshmerga, Russian support and the rag-tag Syrian military, the Iranians can rightfully claim credit for the retreat of ISIS from the Iraqi-Syrian region.

It took the sagacity and wisdom of President Obama to recognise the changing scenario and effect the path-breaking Iran nuclear deal towards the end of his Presidency. Obama had called it a, “historic understanding”. This understanding even morphed into the unstated but effective understanding between the Iranian forces and the other Western anti-ISIS forces like the US, in reversing the tide against ISIS.

In parallel, during the runup to the US Presidential campaigns of 2016, Donald Trump was already playing to the hawkish gallery in the GOP with statements like, “My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran”, describing it as “the highest level of incompetence”.

President Trump has needlessly provoked Iran with brinkmanship and has threatened to decertify (‘tear up’) the deal which he has called an “embarrassment”. His bluster is baseless; none of the recent terror attacks in the US or the Western capitals can be traced to Iran. It is true that Tehran has its proxies in Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis; but neither has perpetrated terror-related activity beyond their localised areas.

If anything the Hezbollah has been relatively quiet on the Israeli-border and is focussed on taking on the ISIS along with the Syrian forces, whereas the Houthis are battling their sectarian war against Al Qaida and ISIS affiliates in Yemen. Trump’s unwarranted bravado could actually weaken the reformist movement within Iran and embolden the radical hardliners, who are up in arms against what they call an insult to their sovereignty.

Ironically, Europe is unequivocally committed to the deal and the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, has remarked that the deal is “vitally important for regional security”. All P5+1 (European Union) members, who are signatories to the deal, are horrified at the portents that this could unleash ~ both domestically in Iran and internationally in terms of security concerns. The default-mindset of US officials is yet to overcome the hypothetical ghosts of 1979. Trump ought to listen carefully to the International Atomic Energy Agency or even his own in-house intelligence and military experts, as opposed to media managers who are driven by ‘optics’ . Even the US Defence secretary and a former combatant, James Mattis, has called for caution.

“If we can confirm that Iran is living by the agreement, if we can determine that this is in our best interest, then clearly we should stay with it”. Personal ego, ignorance of history or foreign policies are at the root of Trump’s clumsiness in dealing with North Korea, his anti-ISIS initiatives and now, Tehran.

Iran is amongst the oldest civilisations in the world, a proud and politically conscious people who would rightfully view Trump’s actions as a personal affront to their sovereignty and dignity.

Few within Iran, or indeed across the world (barring Governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia, for geopolitical and sectarian reasons), can comprehend the continuing US misbehaviour towards Iran, especially when the reality warrants a radically different approach.

(The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Puducherry)