Martin Chulov writes:

For much of this year, two beliefs have held firm in the halls of power in Iran: US attempts to strangle its economy cannot be tolerated and Donald Trump has no intention of going to war.

Far from wilting under the barrel of a global superpower’s guns, Iran’s leaders have signalled an intent to defend their interests, by damaging those of their foes. Iran’s anger at the US, and its alleged role in the attacks on six tankers in Gulf waters over the past five weeks did not emerge from a vacuum. US-imposed sanctions have taken a huge toll on its economy, and diminished its ability to service long-lasting commitments across the region – in Syria and Lebanon, in particular.

Tehran’s access to oil markets has been crippled by a sanctions regime that has proven more targeted and comprehensive than ever before. At the same time, enemies across the Gulf are selling oil to its former customers. To leave either unaddressed would be to signal weakness, say regional officials familiar with Iranian leadership.

What to do about it has been the subject of intense debate in Tehran and discussion with proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon – long the apex of Iran’s foreign policy projection. As has how to square away Trump’s oscillating public stances; hours after tweeting on Friday that neither side was ready for a deal, the US leader said: “We want to get them back to the table”.

The shifting views are likely to further support a view in Iran that Trump is far from the shrewd negotiator he seems – to himself – to be. More carpet-seller than Kissinger, he seems unaware of Iran’s leverage, in regard to its dormant nuclear programme, ignorant of its culture and unsure on his feet as tensions between both sides escalate. [Continue reading…]

Peter Baker writes:

To President Trump, the question of culpability in the explosions that crippled two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman is no question at all. “It’s probably got essentially Iran written all over it,” he declared on Friday.

The question is whether the writing is clear to everyone else. For any president, accusing another country of an act of war presents an enormous challenge to overcome skepticism at home and abroad. But for a president known for falsehoods and crisis-churning bombast, the test of credibility appears far more daunting.

For two and a half years in office, Mr. Trump has spun out so many misleading or untrue statements about himself, his enemies, his policies, his politics, his family, his personal story, his finances and his interactions with staff that even his own former communications director once said “he’s a liar” and many Americans long ago concluded that he cannot be trusted.

Fact-checking Mr. Trump is a full-time occupation in Washington, and in no other circumstance is faith in a president’s word as vital as in matters of war and peace. The public grew cynical about presidents and intelligence after George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq based on false accusations of weapons of mass destruction, and the doubt spilled over to Barack Obama when he accused Syria of gassing its own people. As Mr. Trump confronts Iran, he carries the burden of their history and his own. [Continue reading…]