The war in Iran has reached an extremely critical crossroads. The maximalist objectives of its beginning seem to have given way to more rational forms. Since the Iranian strategy has emphasized regional and global cost-sharing, the Trump administration now seems interested in an exit strategy. Once again, it is confirmed that entering a war is infinitely easier than disengaging.
The regional diffusion of the crisis is through the hard blows against the Gulf countries. These are countries on which the Trump team’s plan to attract investments that will help the American economy is based. Their involvement in the war places them in the group of countries seeking disengagement and precisely because of their economic importance, they have an enhanced influence that cannot be ignored by Washington.
The destruction of their energy infrastructures, however, spreads the cost of war worldwide. Disruption of the supply of oil and natural gas to international markets leads to uncontrolled increases that threaten the economies of countries on a global scale. In practice, it has been proven that in times of war, the mere threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz is enough to close it in practice!
However, it is interesting that as soon as there were strong indications that the US was interested in disengagement, the first information that the mine-laying of the Straits had begun was made public. This could be aimed at indirectly strengthening Washington’s incentive to seek a formula for disengagement from the war, at a faster pace, without much room for negotiation.
This is a high-risk strategy, since it can also have the opposite effect. And in the current situation, and with Trump facing the possibility of serious political damage at home, in view of the midterm elections in a few months, few doubt that the temptation to resort to more destructive arsenals could increase dramatically.
Immoderation and maximalism in the formulation of the goals of the war prove to be a major obstacle to its termination, to the extent that the assessment of success or failure based on the declarations is legitimized. However, on the one hand, reality is usually more complex and on the other hand, often, very often, the real goals are hidden behind a convenient communicative rhetoric.
The US’s Favor of Israel
An interesting omnipresent media report claims that Washington has “ingratified” Israel by participating in this war. The use of arguments related to the potential threat from the Iranian nuclear program in combination with a ballistic arsenal is strongly reminiscent of the arguments that led to the second Gulf War in 2003, in the communication justification for military action.
But behind this rhetoric, which turned out to be pretentious, there was a geopolitical vision related to the new world of “American monocracy” that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union. How history was written afterwards determined the course of the world in the following decades. The conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are clearly linked to the careless management of what Charles Krauthammer called the “Unipolar Moment”, a position that its originator himself reconsidered after September 11, 2001.
Making a leap to the present day, the Trump administration is trying to manage this new situation and find a new balance in US relations with China and Russia, countries that have re-emerged on the international stage, while Washington has paid the price for its misguided choices. Somehow, this is how the theocratic regime in Tehran survived and stabilized! The dominance of the Shiite majority in Iraq led to the creation of the corridor to the eastern Mediterranean…
The US Peer Competitor
At the heart of the Trump administration’s management of the current planetary balance is China, which is considered a “peer competitor”. It is considered the main threat. Based on this perception, the Trump team always considered the handling of the Ukraine issue that led to the Russian invasion to be wrong.
Developments have shown that the US is threatened by a geopolitical scenario that it has traditionally done everything to prevent: cooperation between China and Russia, since it would create conditions for hegemony in Eurasia. With the start of his second term in the White House, Trump’s foreign policy is clearly “Sinocentric”.
Even if it is not publicly acknowledged, the most important choices to date affect this parameter! From the “fortification” of the Western Hemisphere and the revival of the “Monroe Doctrine” with what happened in Panama and Venezuela, to the preoccupation with the “gateway to the Arctic”, called Greenland!
But how do these things lead to war with Iran? The main argument of this commentary is that this simple but fundamental observation was exploited – apparently in combination with other means… – by Israeli diplomacy to convince that a war in Iran is compatible with the geopolitical vision of the current American government!
Whatever has happened, what does not change is the great damage to China’s energy supply, as a result of developments in Iran and the rest of the Gulf countries. Together with the loss of Venezuela, it ranges between 40-50% of its needs! Also, Tehran’s need to “play” with the Straits of Hormuz, deals a strong blow to Beijing, that is, to its most important partners, the Chinese.
It should not be overlooked that the inability – or unwillingness – of the Chinese, the “equal competitor” of the Americans, to protect the Iranians is causing a significant blow to China’s international image. At the same time, however, Washington is also making a big gift to Moscow by increasing Beijing’s dependence on it, in a reversal of the data generated by the Ukraine war.
Decision time for Moscow-Beijing
This, of course, does not mean that Putin will fall into Trump’s arms. What will happen if the Russians avoid copying the tough negotiating tactics of the Chinese, regarding the compensation they ultimately received to absorb the natural gas and oil that was blocked from international markets due to Western sanctions? Could it ultimately facilitate the coordination of the stance towards the Americans, paving the way for the emergence of the new multipolar world in practice?
Returning to the war in Iran, the strategic priorities of the US and Israel cannot be the same. However, the successful decoding of the Trump team’s perspective and the clever cultivation of the image that joint military action would simultaneously serve the top strategic interests of both sides offers a rational geopolitical interpretation, free from the extremely popular conspiracy theories.
The maximalist goals of overthrowing the regime, for many, ranged from a simple question of whether there was a “rabbit in the hat” to a completely unattainable goal. However, even if the conflict were to end today, both sides would have recorded gains in their most basic pursuits. After the Iranians who would claim victory, due to the survival of the regime!
The Americans against the Chinese, as explained by the Israelis with the purchase of time against Iran. For the latter, chaos is preferable to an Iran with a nuclear arsenal. Regardless of what anyone may value and believe, that is, how they evaluate and judge the strategic choices of the belligerents, what matters is what their own beliefs and hierarchies are.
Until the next round of the conflict, however, since the problem remains. The legacy of this war, if something does not change dramatically, will create the conditions that will gradually lead to the next one. It is not excluded that it will be much worse than the current one.
Israelis and Iranians are trapped in a zero-sum game. They will have a hard time convincing each other that they are not seeking the other’s destruction. And this round of conflict, which has not yet been concluded, makes the prospect of coexistence even more difficult.
The Europeans will prove to be even bigger losers from this conflict. When their energy supply at reasonable prices has to be jeopardized in order to admit a “strategic error” by rushing to restore the nuclear energy option, something – continues to – go very wrong.
With similar strategic myopia, they also managed the conditions that led to the war in Ukraine and its energy consequences. Even at this time, Brussels avoids talking clearly about the “transition fuel” natural gas, leaving the initiative of the movements to the Americans. With all that this entails.
The Americans and energy sources have and will support their economy in the defense industry. Wars exhaust the arsenals and the customers are many. And because it is certain that Europe will continue mainly with discussions and statements, the responsibility of each capital individually is great. If there is awareness in an era when the quality of the elites is justifiably questioned.
