The US Congressional Research Service (CRS) points to growing tensions between the US and Iran. This is stated in the report of the service, the text of which was read by RT. Analysts believe that the dynamics of US-Iran relations could lead to a “significant conflict”.

Thus, the authors of the report note that in the event of an armed conflict, the United States has a "wide range of capabilities" that can be used against Iran, its allies and representatives. Iran, in turn, also demonstrates the ability to harm the global economy and, in particular, the interests of the United States and to raise new concerns about its nuclear activities.

“Meanwhile, Iran’s entry into alliances with armed groups and armed support throughout the region, as well as the presence of agents in Europe, Latin America and other parts of the world, allow Tehran to impose confrontation in areas where the US may have limited response capabilities." , - noted in the report.

In addition, according to analysts, Iran could try to force international players, such as Russia or the countries of Europe and Asia, which depend on stable oil supplies, to influence the Trump administration in order to alleviate the sanctions burden of Tehran.

Thus, congressional research officers presented three possible scenarios for the development of relations between the United States and Iran.

In particular, the parties could take additional steps to de-escalate tensions. In this case, Iran could accept the US proposal to negotiate the revision and development of a more detailed version of the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear program. However, American analysts note that the US requirements regarding the new agreement are very extensive and Iran’s authorities will insist that America first return to compliance with the JCPOA in its current form.

The Congressional Research Service also admits that the situation will not change in any way, that is, it will not lead either to an armed conflict or to negotiations to resolve the US-Iranian differences.

Nevertheless, the third scenario does not preclude further escalation of the conflict. In particular, Iran will take further steps to ease US sanctions.

“In order to force the United States to take such a step, Iran can take further actions that will be directed against American employees or go against American interests,” the report says.

“Foreign Policy Instrument”

  • Gulf military helicopter
  • Flickr
  • © The US Army

Congressional Research Services experts are analyzing Washington’s possible response, including a military invasion as a very real development. Armed forces are an instrument of state influence that the United States can use to achieve its goals, the report said.

“The choice of the format of military campaigns and effective military decisions depends on the political goals set by the US authorities,” the staff of the Research Center explains.

So, if necessary, the States retain the possibility of invading Iran or installing an air and sea blockade.

“The United States reserves the right to launch air and rocket attacks, carry out special operations, as well as conduct cyber and electronic warfare against Iran’s targets such as the IRGC ships in the Persian Gulf, and also against nuclear facilities, military bases, ports, and any number of others goals on the territory of Iran itself, ”the document says.

The United States has traditionally used force as an instrument of foreign policy, said Vadim Kozyulin, professor at the Academy of Military Sciences and a senior fellow at the Center for Political Studies of Russia.

“Moreover, they believe that they are obliged by their dominant martial law to use it (military force. - RT ) to ensure international security,” the expert explained in an interview with RT.

At the same time, according to the deputy director of the National Institute for the Development of Modern Ideology Igor Shatrov, Washington is moving from the field of forecasts to the field of practical training.

“We see that the United States failed to convince its allies, parties to the Comprehensive Treaty on the Iranian Nuclear Dossier, that Iran was not fulfilling its obligations. And the United States, in order not to be left alone, not to get involved in this anti-Iranian campaign, began to look for more convincing arguments in favor of increasing pressure at least, but as a maximum for real aggression against Iran, ”Shatrov said in an interview with RT.

Recall, on September 14, two unmanned aerial vehicles attacked the refineries of the state-owned company Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia. The responsibility was assumed by the Hussite Yemeni rebels.

At the same time, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran for the attacks, urging all countries to "publicly and unconditionally condemn Iran’s attacks."

  • Shots of the aftermath of an attack on a refinery in Saudi Arabia
  • © Planet Labs Inc / Handout via REUTERS

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham said the United States could strike back at Iran’s refineries.

“The list of goals that I would propose in the event of a military strike would include Iranian refineries. It’s not about invading Iran, but we want to force them to pay for trying to disrupt the world order, ”Graham said.

Iran, in turn, denies all allegations of an attack on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Jawad Zarif said the threat of a full-scale war should the United States or Saudi Arabia attack Iran.

“You just won’t succeed”

However, the US Congressional Research Service is aware that any use of force by the United States, as in all cases of using military instruments of state influence, can lead to retaliatory action by Iran or an escalation of the crisis.

At the same time, military operations are not the most suitable tool to achieve systemic changes in the Iranian regime, according to CRS.

“American force measures may not be the most suitable tool for the systematic transformation of the Iranian regime and actually worsen the situation for citizens who support its change. The use of open military force is likely to strengthen the position of elements opposed to the United States in the Iranian government, ”the authors of the report note.

While military operations will require additional financial costs, according to the Congressional Research Service.

At the same time, according to analysts, the armed conflict in Iran will impede the achievement of other long-term strategic goals of the United States.

So, CRS analysts recall that the 2017 National Security Strategy and the 2018 National Defense Strategy note that China and Russia represent key strategic challenges for the United States today and in the future. Therefore, transferring military assets to the US Central Command (CENTCOM) area of ​​responsibility requires distracting them from use in other theaters such as Europe and the Pacific.

A military expert, Vadim Kozyulin, in an interview with RT, noted that today Iran has enough potential to respond to US military aggression. In addition, Iran may block shipping in the Persian Gulf, which will be a shock to the global economy and the United States.

At the same time, Igor Shatrov, in an interview with RT, suggested that it would be unprofitable for Donald Trump to get involved in a long-running war on the eve of the US presidential election.

“First of all, Trump needs a small victorious war or some kind of victory in general. I think that the United States is holding back the understanding that Iran will not succeed quickly and simply. But Trump does not want to enter the elections with the war, ”the expert noted.