Boris Johnson can use his affinity with Trump to calm the Iranian crisis | Suzanne Maloney | Opinion

BOris Johnson takes the reins of an urgent crisis in the Gulf, where Iran's seizure of a British oil tanker threatens to drag the UK and the international community into harm's way. escalating friction between Washington and Tehran. But in times of crisis, opportunities exist and the new prime minister should use his affinity with Donald Trump to defuse responsibly while strengthening the torn transatlantic relations around Iran.

Tehran accused oil tanker Stena Impero of colliding with a fishing boat and violating international regulations. The seizure, however, took place shortly after the Iranian rulers threatened to respond to the British seizure of an Iranian-flagged vessel in Gibraltar on suspicion that the vessel had violated the sanctions imposed by the European Union at the time. Syria.

The confrontation has erupted in a climate of heightened tension in the Gulf since the Trump government began increasing economic pressure on Tehran. After the latest escalation of US sanctions in May, proxies linked to Iran launched attacks on at least four oil tankers, as well as on a Saudi pipeline and various US facilities in Iraq. Last month, the two countries narrowly avoided a direct military clash; After an Iranian ground-to-air missile shot down an American drone, Trump had given his initial agreement for strikes on Iran before reversing the order and allowing cyberattacks and additional sanctions.

The provocations of Tehran are unfortunate but hardly unexpected. His seizure of the Stena Impero is in line with Iran's long-standing strategic doctrine, which advocates an aggressive response to pressure, as the most effective means of deterring even greater pressure. In this case, the counter-response is part of a broader strategy to extract Iran from the prospect of a relentless state of economic siege imposed by Washington.

The decision by the Trump administration in May 2018 to terminate the 2015 nuclear deal proved to be catastrophically effective, at least in terms of its impact on the Iranian economy. The economic sanctions imposed by the United States have reduced Iran's oil exports, severed its banking relations with the world and generated high inflation and shortages for ordinary Iranians.

Tehran has a long history of economic challenges, starting with the 1979 revolution and the brutal eight-year war with Iraq that followed. And Iranian leaders have considerable expertise in mitigating US sanctions. But an indefinite American stranglehold is an existential threat to a regime whose aging rulers are trying to maintain control of a vibrant, well-educated society, eager for opportunity and dialogue with the world.

Iranian leaders initially sought little economic relief from Europe. European governments are deeply committed to maintaining the nuclear deal, but they have been powerless to prevent European companies from hurrying to leave Iran for fear of US sanctions. Although Europe has finally launched a banking channel to preserve certain humanitarian exchanges with Iran, it is clear that Europe can not compensate significantly for the costs of the withdrawal of the United States from the agreement.

Faced with a bad hand, Tehran uses the tools at its disposal, its prodigious destabilizing capabilities, to change the status quo in its favor. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, claimed that Washington was seeking to weaken Iran through pressure and, after the country's debacle, to use the negotiations as a means of stealing the rights and capabilities of Iran. Iran. He insisted that Iran must deploy its own leverage to overcome this trap.

From this point of view, the escalations in Iran have a dangerous meaning. Provocations in the Gulf instill urgency on other stakeholders in the nuclear deal. The threat to shipping increases the costs of continuing the crisis, both financially, through escalating insurance premiums for tanker traffic, and geopolitics, raising fears military confrontation more important and more ruinous. For Tehran, the worry of the war could galvanize more serious international efforts to curb Trump's bellicose policy. And the risks may also affect Washington's calculation, particularly for a president in the midst of a re-election campaign that is closely monitoring the price of gas and has long opposed another US military intervention in the Middle East.

The attacks usefully intimidate some of Iran's neighbors, threatening to dispel the pain and the consequences of Trump's policy on the governments that have been his most ardent cheerleaders. Better still, the seizure of Stena Impero can be justified as an appropriate response to the seizure of the Grace 1 – a strong response to perceived British bullying has considerable appeal for an Iranian public besieged by economic suffering.

With its recent efforts to evade the restrictions of the nuclear deal, mounting tensions in the Gulf have unfortunately strengthened Iran's position. Tehran will be careful to avoid inadvertent escalation or a widespread breach with Europe, but so far, Iranian leaders are gaining more provocative momentum than the "strategic patience" that they have shown in the first year. followed the signing of the agreement by Trump.

Great Britain and the United States must also strike the right balance to respond to this latest incident. Trump's reluctance to use force after the June drone strike emboldened Tehran. It is therefore imperative that Iranian leaders understand that the cost of continued harbadment of civilian vessels in the Gulf will far outweigh any leverage that Iran hopes to accumulate. Johnson is well positioned to work with Washington to reinforce this message and rebuild a common approach to Gulf security.

At the same time, Johnson should seek to revive a serious diplomacy with Iran. Expectations must be modest; there is no realistic prospect of a new comprehensive agreement that meets all of Washington's demands. But a new negotiating process can pave the way for solving specific problems, such as the unjust detention of foreign nationals, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, by Iran, as well as opportunities for conflict reduction in the Gulf and building confidence in the region. The alternative – ceaseless threats to the world's largest energy corridor and continued US control over Iran's economy – would be ruinous for all parties.

• Suzanne Maloney is Deputy Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution