Gen. Wesley Clark: Iran has the advantage over US in negotiations

At the end of its sixth week, the war against Iran is entering a new phase, with face-to-face negotiations in Pakistan while American forces remain in place and Iran is on hair-trigger alert to respond. The shooting war is mostly paused, but the negotiations will reflect the respective results, capabilities and will of each side. This is where the war will be won or lost.

Iran enters the negotiations with decided advantages, despite six weeks of losses in the air campaign. It may actually have a superior position to the United States.

How did this happen?

First, Iran has studied U.S. tactics and capabilities for years, and has prepared itself to deal with a war it found inevitable and even desirable.

It has worked at the strategic level – aiming for regional dominance, assessing U.S. weaknesses and vulnerabilities – and then developing the weapons and tactics to exploit these.

It understood that the United States uses relatively few, highly expensive weapons and seeks short wars, with limited casualties, so Iran is prepared to fight a long war and wage it on its own soil, where it could create massive losses if American ground forces were to invade.

It also understood that the United States had promised protection to the Persian Gulf states, like the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, so it prepared to strike these states to distract, discredit and disrupt U.S. operations.

It also learned from the "tanker war" of the 1980s that control of the Strait of Hormuz was one of the most powerful strategic weapons in the world, and realized that it must build deep, multilayered defenses there.

Iran was well prepared for a US attack

Recognizing U.S. capabilities, Iran cooperated with China to rapidly advance its ballistic and cruise missile technologies in both range and ability to avoid missile defenses. Iran created more than two dozen missile cities, with missile production and storage deep underground, beyond the reach of even the largest U.S. bombs.

It attacked with its oldest weapons first, and held back its best missiles until Israel and the Gulf states were forced to carefully ration interceptor missiles.

At this point, Iran could have as much as half its prewar inventory of missiles available, and could be assembling more missiles and launchers underground. It has ample reserves of missiles and drones to sustain its attacks for many months at the current rate of expenditure.

Its anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles are highly effective and battle-tested by the Houthis over the past three years.

Iran's command-and-control structure is distributed among all its provinces, so even if the central headquarters are knocked out, individual provinces have the knowledge and authority to attack on their own.

Russian intelligence and Chinese satellite imagery have given Iran's organizations accurate and relatively timely target locations. Russia and China continue to deliver military materiel and chemicals to Iran, also.

The US battle plan for Iran was familiar

The United States, on the other hand, had studied and prepared targets against Iran for decades. When the war began, the Pentagon just applied its advanced technologies of stealth and "precision strike," which the Tehran regime had seen as early as the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and as recently as last June's 12-day war.

When the early strikes on Iran's air defenses, leadership and accessible military targets failed to achieve an early "knockout," the United States began seeking an exit due to critical munitions needs, time limits on deployments, reluctance to take casualties and mounting political challenges in an election year – just as Iran anticipated.

America simply could not translate its airpower into a decisive strategic advantage quickly enough.

As the negotiations begin, all U.S. objectives still would need to be won through them. Even Iran’s missile threat remains a problem.

Will Iran give up its nuclear materials and agree to no or limited enrichment, enforced by inspections? Will Iran accept limitations on its missile and drone programs? Will Iran dismantle its “axis of resistance” and cease support for Hezbollah?

Can the United States protect Israel's freedom of action? And, perhaps most critically, will Iran completely open the Strait of Hormuz for all to pass freely?

U.S. negotiators will have to address Iran's starkly opposing set of goals, which include the United States withdrawing its forces from the region, guaranteeing no further attacks on Iran, ending all sanctions, paying war reparations and so on. Iran is preparing permanent control over the strait.

The outcome is going to depend on the skill of the negotiators and the leverage they can bring.

Can the US win the battle at the negotiating table?

Which side is more ready to resort to war again? Which side is more eager for an agreement? Which side can find the right language to finesse difficult issues and still gain the better of the other? Which side will demand the last word?

While the ceasefire was announced to last for two weeks, the two sides are far apart and the issues are complex. The ceasefire will likely be extended, and this gives ever greater leverage to Iran.

Closure of the strait has handed Iran something more powerful even than nuclear blackmail, and the Iranians are using it.

Already, Washington is considering possible concessions: Maybe Iranian control would be OK if the fees are shared with the United States? Certainly not!

For decades, Israeli and Western strategists have sought to address the conflict in the region by "going to the source," which was Iran. Now we are at the source, but we are not winning yet. What must be done?

To back away now would leave Iran as the new hegemon in the region. We would face profound economic and strategic consequences as the petrodollar is rerouted to China, and the Gulf states realign their loyalties, policies and investments.

This would impact us with mounting interest rates, inflation and slower growth. U.S. credibility as an ally and global force would be shattered. Withdrawing from NATO would only deepen the problem.

Instead, Washington must negotiate from a stronger position. To "go to the source" we must align with our allies, win public support and patience at home, and set a deadline for negotiations. No stalling.

While we talk, we must be ready to resume the air campaign, with perhaps some new tactics and, above all, prepare with our allies to open the Strait of Hormuz by force.

Will there be more fighting before this is over? Almost certainly.

Wesley Clark is a retired U.S. Army general and former NATO Supreme Allied commander in Europe.