US ‘Freedom Project’ in ...
Page 1
The first and most significant deterrent is their economic ties with Iran. Countries such as South Korea, Japan, and India have maintained substantial trade relations with Iran in the past and have sought to preserve at least a minimal level of engagement even during periods of sanctions. Participation in a military coalition against Iran would effectively mean severing these ties and losing future economic opportunities. At a time when many of these countries are seeking to diversify their energy sources and trade partners, this cost is considerable.
The second factor is the reluctance to become directly involved in a military confrontation with Iran. Asian countries in particular have built their diplomatic traditions on non-interference in other regions and avoidance of military alliances. Participation in this project would expose them to the risk of retaliatory attacks, whether in the Strait of Hormuz or elsewhere where their interests are present. This security risk is especially serious for countries with limited military capability to defend their interests beyond their national borders.
The third factor is the unsuccessful track record of similar coalitions in the past. The maritime coalition formed by the US in 2019 to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf received limited support and failed to achieve its objectives. This experience demonstrated that such coalitions often carry heavy political costs while offering limited operational benefits. Countries therefore prefer to ensure the security of their vessels through bilateral or multilateral arrangements outside a US-led framework.
The fourth factor is domestic pressure and public opinion. In many of these countries, public sentiment is sensitive to military involvement in the Middle East, and governments are reluctant to bear the domestic political costs associated with such participation. Particularly in democratic systems, opposition from parliaments and political parties can pose a serious obstacle.
The fifth factor is concern over the potential negative impact on relations with China. Many Asian countries regard China as their largest trading partner, and Beijing has openly opposed US confrontational policies in the Middle East. Participation in this project may be interpreted as alignment with US strategy against China, thereby placing additional strain on their relations with Beijing.
Impact on Tehran-Washington negotiation deadlock
The “Freedom Project” is unfolding within a complex context of Iran–US relations, marked by multiple layers of tension, mistrust, and at the same time a need for dialogue. Its impact on Tehran-Washington negotiations can be examined from two opposing perspectives: as a lever of pressure and as a complicating factor.
From the standpoint of US strategy, the project could serve as a tool to increase costs for Iran and create incentives for a return to the negotiating table. On the other hand, it may significantly complicate the negotiating environment and reduce the chances of reaching an agreement. Historical experience in Iran-US relations has shown that unilateral pressure often leads to the hardening of Iran’s positions.
This initiative may be perceived as a breach of goodwill, particularly if informal negotiations or backchannel communications are taking place simultaneously. Tehran may interpret the move as a sign of Washington’s lack of seriousness in negotiations and, in response, adopt a tougher stance. This could set off a cycle of action and reaction that derails the negotiation process entirely.
Another layer of complexity lies in its impact on mutual trust. Successful negotiations require at least a minimal level of trust between the parties. Military actions, even if limited, undermine this fragile trust. Iran may conclude that the opposing side is pursuing a military rather than a diplomatic solution, which in turn could reduce its willingness to invest in the negotiation process.