The West Asia is well into the second month, and Iran is still standing. For the US, it is as much a war to assert the American global power status as it is to negate an inveterate enemy. On the sidelines of the Iran war, Israel is also systematically degrading the Iran proxies in the region.
For Israel, the returns from the war are well worth the price that it is paying for the war. For the US, the cost of the war, in physical terms, may be affordable. However, the steep reputational cost may be slipping into the red and is a cause of worry. This makes it extremely essential for the US to secure visible and tangible outcomes within a reasonable time.
As per the established norms, the most destructive weapon systems of war serve as tools of deterrence rather than as tools of destruction. These capabilities add overwhelming weight and credibility to the threats put out by “responsible” holders of such systems. Similarly, civil infrastructure is not considered a legitimate target in war. However, in the context of the ongoing war, we are in a situation where the warring parties on either side are already breaching some of these norms. We may be staring at the dangerous possibility of even the remaining norms being breached.
President Trump’s inconsistency makes the Gulf quagmire deeper. Nonchalantly, he blows hot and cold, giving the impression that the US has achieved all its aims, but the very next moment, he goes on to assert that more intense strikes on Iran will follow in the coming weeks.
Trump’s actions and statements have turned the global markets topsy-turvy. It would be interesting to check out the market investments and disinvestments made by the “Trump Business Empire”, before and after each market-influencing statement made by President Trump during the war.
Iran, on its part, is determined to take the fight to the wire. Iran isn’t a medieval Islamic kingdom. Apart from its inherent civilisational strength, combined with the Shia sacrificial spirit, a distinct nationalist fervour and its natural resources, Iran has a fairly tech-competent and high-quality human capital.
The relentless US-Israel strikes have pushed Iran back by many decades in terms of military and economic capabilities. It has also suffered huge losses in terms of human lives. But what Iran has not lost despite the devastating destruction that is being inflicted on it 24/7 and what it vehemently refuses to lose, is its honour and national pride. That makes a surrender or submission to Trump’s conditions a very remote possibility.
Random missile strikes on valuable targets in the target-rich Gulf, and its ability to squeeze ‘Hormuz’ and hold the world energy supply chains to ransom are adequate retaliation capabilities for Iran to believe that its national honour remains intact.
For Iran’s adversaries, putting boots on the ground to secure a decisive victory would be prohibitively costly and would remain a no-go option.
In the backdrop of all this, what would define a victory for the US seems ambiguous. On the contrary, for Iran, there is no such ambiguity. Iran is the underdog. Not surrendering formally, even when it has been bombed to rubble, is in itself a victory for Iran.
Total destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities, a near destruction of its missiles and drone manufacturing facilities and a debilitating blow to its critical infrastructure are what Trump would ideally like to achieve. This will require intense strikes in a graduated manner and, in extreme cases, some selective surgical ground operations and even some low-yield nuclear strikes.
There is also a possibility, which Trump hints at sometimes—he may just declare victory / “aim accomplished” and pull out.
President Trump can also choose to let the war linger on below a certain threshold, hoping that Iran will wear out first. This may be executed in the form of sporadic, intense strikes followed by short periods of suspension of war, with frequent announcements of terms and conditions for the cessation of war.
An immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities would be the most preferred option for the world. However, such a possibility does not appear to be around the corner.
With President Trump’s track record, no option can be ruled out.
As far as the region is concerned, Gulf countries could end up paying the highest price for the Iran war, both in the short and long term. They had not anticipated the trajectory that the war is taking and the manner in which a cornered Iran is inflicting pain on them and the world. They find themselves right in the centre of the crossfire, absolutely unprepared for the consequences that are unfolding. For decades, with the Iran genie securely confined within its own borders, the Gulf countries had enjoyed an era of peace and prosperity. The war has let the genie out, and Iran now holds the potential to keep the region in an unsettled state of turmoil after the war. The existing security structure and security guarantees in the region have been rendered grossly inadequate and ineffective to cope with the changed geopolitics of the region. A new, formal security alliance framework for the Gulf may well be on the cards. Gulf countries can also expect a hefty bill as their share of the war costs from Trump.
For the rest of the world, the economic and geopolitical pains are getting more acute with every passing day of the war and with every flip-flop statement of President Trump. For the larger global good, the war must end as soon as possible.
Where is the world headed? “Go get your own oil,” and Trump’s latest televised address to his nation have only reinforced the geopolitical uncertainty. President Trump’s assertions signal his deep discomfort with a multipolar world. Even a smaller multi-lateral coalition like the NATO is under immense existential stress. Trump’s onslaught on institutions, traditional US allies and partners is making even China seem like a responsible, rules-based global player. With the kind of geopolitical churning that is taking place, it may be time for a multi-lateral global alliance where no member enjoys a dictating status.
Who can make a deal with the authoritarian head of state of the most powerful country in the world, who throws diplomatic niceties to the wind every minute, threatens China, Russia, the EU and the NATO in the same breath, hurls insults at elected heads of states with impunity, rides roughshod over every global institution including the UN and makes contradictory statements 24/7?
Maybe the world needs to give a momentary ‘pass’ to morality and help President Trump stop the hostilities by praising him and assuring him that all his war goals have been achieved.
(The writer is former deputy chief of India Army)
(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.)