Aramco attacks .. Does Trump resort to "Ramadi"?

Mohamed Minshawi-Washington

World capitals and financial markets are awaiting what President Donald Trump will decide to respond to the attacks on Saudi Aramco facilities, but the nature of his personality, changing attitudes and contradictory statements make it difficult to predict his decisions.

At a rally in New Mexico on Monday night, Trump said his country "does not need to panic because it is oil independent and does not need to send troops to the Middle East as before."

Hours earlier, Trump hinted that Iran might be involved in the Aramco attack, saying he wanted to avoid war with it. "It seems Iran is responsible, but I certainly want to avoid war with it," he said.

"If Iran's direct or indirect responsibility for the attacks is proven, it will be difficult for Trump not to respond or he will appear to be a weak president," said Judd Bahgat, a professor at the Pentagon's National Defense University.

"Trump has always reiterated that he is a strong president who can make important decisions when necessary, but he has kept his pledges not to engage Washington in any new Middle East wars and has always demanded the return of US troops to the homeland," Bahjat told Al Jazeera Net.

Bahjat, an expert on Iranian affairs, is likely to "balance Trump's desire to emerge as a strong leader and his reluctance to engage in a new US war, so he may embrace the gray alternative, ie not to start a conventional war, carry out cyberattacks or impose more economic and diplomatic sanctions." ".

David Mack, a former US ambassador to the Middle East Institute in Washington, believes the Trump administration "will not risk war with Iran without a full and comprehensive agreement with Saudi Arabia."

"Riyadh is aware now and more than ever that any war would cost a lot of losses, even if the United States hit Iran relentlessly."

Mac predicted that Washington would make the option of "tougher economic sanctions, and open some secret channels of communication at a limited level with the Iranians," ruled out that this is done quickly.

The expert at the RAND Foundation, Ariana Tabtabani, believes that "the details of Iranian involvement in the attacks may result in different positions on the part of Washington."

"If it were proved that the attacks came out of Iranian territory, it would be a very dangerous development," she told US national radio.

"The attacks are a direct reaction to the sanctions imposed by Washington, and Tehran has nothing to lose, especially as the collapse of the Iranian economy continues."

Trump and Rouhani
Regarding the possibility of holding a summit meeting between Trump and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani, Bahjat said, "Iran" has not retracted its request to lift sanctions before any new negotiations, while the Trump administration adheres to the policy of heavy pressure on Iran.

"Rouhani does not have the final say on any future negotiations. It is in the hands of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, a man who does not trust the United States; it is hard to imagine any concession on both sides as long as Khamenei and Trump remain in power."

Ambassador Mac agrees with Bahjat that it is difficult to envisage a summit meeting that will bring Rouhani to Trump on the sidelines of the annual UN General Assembly meetings.

"Trump may want to hold the meeting, which is consistent with his personal nature, which is happy to appear on the covers of international magazines and newspapers without the need to resolve outstanding problems," McCh said.

`` Trump is trying to meet to say that he is going to reach a better deal than his predecessor Barack Obama, but the Iranian side is excited to hold the meeting only on the most important conditions, the most important of which is the lifting of sanctions against Tehran before sitting at the negotiating table, and Trump does not appear ready to make any concessions at this stage. Unlike Trump, Rouhani is determined to discuss every little detail before any meeting with the US president. "