Introduction: Ceasefire talk
To hear American officials speaking about the Middle East, one would be forgiven for thinking that the region is on the brink of sparking world war. “We need to de-escalate!” they insist. “A negotiated ceasefire must be prioritised!” they repeat. Underlining such statements are not some misplaced love for Hezbollah; after all the group’s commanders include those that have perpetrated terrorism on US servicepeople. Nor a more understandable concern about civilian deaths: For Israeli attacks on the Iranian proxy have been as pinpoint as any in human history. Witness the pager attacks on leading Hezbollah figures, leaving those around them largely unscathed. Marvel at the successful assassination of Nasrallah at the first time of asking; Hitler’s bunker strategy failing terribly. Rather the USA is worried that it too may be dragged into the fight. It’s the same unfortunate national characteristic that displayed itself in the early 20th Century. The Americans only fight when they absolutely have to (George W didn’t read the manual) and then take full credit when they finally charge onto the scene.
The advantages of American engagement
But unlike the experience of the two world wars, where American public opinion was adverse to engaging other great powers and where the cost in American lives was foreseeably tragic, the United States here is being asked to provide relatively little in order to gain very much. At the time of writing, the tiny Israeli nation of 9.5 million souls (a good third of whom - the Haredim and the Israeli Arabs - contribute little in the way of manpower) has done all the heavy lifting. It is the Israeli mainstream who are sending their young sons to die on a daily basis. It is Israeli reservists who have barely been able to escape the trauma in over a year of fighting. Meanwhile, the United States - roughly 345 million and counting - has been asked to provide material, diplomatic backing and specifically in the case of the Iranian mission, bunker bombs that are able to penetrate the deeply embedded nuclear facilities. American fighters from 50,000 feet in the skies may have to contribute their expertise, that is true. But that is a far cry from the ground troops that were called upon in the fight against Hitler. And it will be brave Iranians - schoolchildren, women, the old - who will ultimately be required to topple their oppressors; at the greatest of risks to their own person. In the end, it will require the Iranian military to finally turn on their masters to apply the coup de grace. Compared to the bravery of Israelis and ordinary Iranian civilians, US involvement will be minor to say the least.
Now of course, both Israel and the suffering Iranian masses thank American taxpayers for footing the bill. They - and we in the West generally - are grateful beyond words (or at least we should be). But such is the burden of international responsibility. And America gains a great deal from its decisive involvement. In purely financial terms, much of the military aid provided to Israel comes in the form of credit vouchers, meaning that Israel has no choice but to purchase its weapons from American arms manufacturers. The boost to the American arms industry - and by extension its economy - is clear. The elimination of the Iranian-funded menace in Yemen would ease the transport of oil and other commodities through the Bab al Mendab strait, reducing prices for American consumers. And the restoration of calm in the region - enforced by America’s allies from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Israel to a newly free Iran - would be of immense benefit to US interests.
These more cynical benefits would be accompanied by other advantages of a fundamentally moral nature. The US would be seen as a saviour by the moderate forces in the region, not least the majority (?) of ordinary Iranians, who would once again be in charge of their own destiny. But, unlike in Iraq where the joy of the Kurds was tempered by the alienation of the hitherto ruling Sunnis, the support for US involvement would come from a wide coalition. Shia joy on the streets of Tehran would be joined in a beautiful symphony by that of moderate Sunnis, Lebanese Christians and the Jews of Israel. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and other giants of the Sunni alliance would be finally rid of the Iranian menace; not for them merely, or even principally, a religious manner. But rather that the forces of a revolutionary regime so antithetical to conservative, monarchic rule would finally be stopped in its tracks. No longer would Saudi or Bahrain have to fear the incitement of their restive Shia populations. And as for Israelis, the happiness of a nation no longer under siege from 8 different compass points, would be a relief of the most ecstatic nature. Now at last the road would be clear for the expansion of the Abraham Accords and its biggest prize: The economic and security union of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Peace would no longer be a mirage in the desert sands. And who knows, perhaps the culmination of Iranian defeat with Arab peace will bring about the reformation of Islam that it so badly needs. All the above would be achieved with minimal American physical involvement and without US boots on the ground. Compared to the blood-letting of the two world wars, the US achievement would come cheap.
The regional context
Yet despite the undoubted advantages for the United States, its government seems somehow reluctant to deliver the final blow. Here we stand at an inflection point in this most conservative of regions and yet the US stands idly by, dithering. Never has a nation stood to gain so much with so little effort. The reasoning, one assumes, is that they believe in the risk of igniting a regional or even world war. Given the arguments laid out above, such a conclusion seems spectacularly amiss. True enough, Israel is currently engaged on multiple fronts, giving the superficial impression that the entire region is ablaze. But in reality, the country is simply engaged in a confrontation with the Iranian Islamic Republic and its proxies occupying other local countries. The war in Lebanon isn’t against Lebanon. How many Christian areas are being targeted? Or Druze? Or Sunni for that matter? And the Shia civilian population is being told where and when to flee.
The war is simply against the Iranian local army called Hezbollah. Same in Yemen. And the same in Syria. Opponents of the Assad regime, so inelegantly propped up by Putins’s Russia, Iran and Hezbollah fighters, are celebrating the Israeli blows on social media. Meanwhile the Kurds of Iraq are hardly seeing the death of Iranian proxies occupying their terrority as an attack on them. Quite the reverse. To date the IDF has yet to launch a war against any State at all; even the fight in Gaza is against a group unrecognised by the international-supported Palestinian Authority government. The only country who one could argue is being attacked is Syria, with that regime being so dependent on Iran. But even there, much of the populace is anti-Assad. Indeed the Syrian army has yet to engage Israel, even as attacks on its territory are ongoing.
So the reality is where we started. The initial war was against forces loyal to Iran and here we still are over one year later. The majority of Arab States have barely raised a cry in anger; indeed one strongly suspects that they are secretly egging Israel on. After all, Muslim brotherhood-aligned Hamas is a mortal enemy of Egypt’s military regime; Hezbollah is listed as a terrorist entity by the Gulf States and Arab League; and Jordan aided Israel and the West in repelling the ballistic missile attacks on Israel. Not only does this not indicate any Erdogan-endorsed “Muslim solidarity”, it shows that there is absolutely no risk of those nations mobilising on the side of Iran in any direct war. So where exactly is the US-feared regional war going to come from? If not a single State, with the possible exceptions of Assad’s Syria and the Republic of Ireland (!), is going to take on the US (or even want to), why would the Americans fear? Even Hamas-funding Qatar isn’t going to rock the boat too much; after all they just happen to have an sprawling American naval base on their territory. With the Hezbollah-painted Queen on the Iranian chess board KOed (or at least severely weakened), it is looking awfully like checkmate for the Iranian mullahs. Unless of course America gives them an inexplicable lifeline.
World war?
As for world war, this is hyperbolic talk. True enough, Russia has allies in the region, notably Assad with his all-important Russia military installation. But if anything, this mitigates against Syria getting involved in any war. Why would the Russians risk the prize that they fought for so ferociously and with such a price in Syrian blood? In any case, the Russian conventional military is looking ever more like a busted flush: struggling to maintain hold over the chunk of Ukrainian territory it has yet extracted, let alone conquer the entire country. So overstretched are their chronically-under trained armed forces - leaking ever more thousands of Russian lives in the boss’ lust for cannon fodder - that they simply don’t have the means, will or material to open yet another front; and against the Americans of all people! Even when asked by Armenia to repeal the Azeri advance into Nagorno Karabakh as part of a defence pact, the Kremlin demeured (relative child’s play). More pressing events were unfolding in Eastern Europe and they were unable to assist. The Armenians were furious. Somehow I don’t think that Iran can count on the Kremlin.
In the wake of the Ukrainian horror show, the Russians have become increasingly reliant on alliances with China, Iran and North Korea to sustain its economy. An axis of anti-Americans. North Korea is unable to add much to the blood-stained party except bombs; and Iran, also an industrially underdeveloped petrostate like the Muscovite autocracy, exports exactly the same products as its pariah friend: mainly oil. Not exactly conducive to booming bilateral trade then. China is laughing all the way to the bank. With the Iran-Russia double act desperately outbidding each other to sell their oil for bargain basement prices, China is racking in the profits. Russia, forced to compete with Iran, is hardly likely to go all-in and rescue its main economic adversary (even if it could).
As for China, it is wrong to fully lump the Asian dragon in with the association of pariahs. True enough the Chinese behaviour in Xingjiang and Hong Kong is worse than contemptible. And its eternal designs on Taiwan may yet throw it definitively from grace. But for the moment it is playing a double game; making hay while the Ukrainian Sun is still shining, but keeping its foot firmly in the world order. For the moment, China is still one of the two great economic behemoths and from that it gains a great deal; not least the legitimacy of the communist regime amongst its wealth-accumulating people. One day, it may tragically jettison its prosperity in order to satisfy its insatiable Taiwanese dreams, but let us be clear; the CCP are prepared to bet the house on Taiwan and Taiwan alone. It is difficult to see in what universe Xi Jingping would throw away the comforts of his people on the altar of a fading Iran. Quite unthinkable.
So I ask again, from whence is this world war going to emanate? China won’t fight for iran. Russia can’t fight for Iran. And India, when forced to choose, will go for the US-UAE-Israel alliance without batting an eyelid. There is barely an Arab State that will fight for Iran and ultimately it is questionable whether even the Iranian people will fight for Iran. The country’s theocratic regime is utterly isolated. And all America needs to do is send some fighter jets with some deep bunker bombs, smash the regime’s oil refineries and the game’s over without a single American casualty.
The historical US policy of equilibrium
Traditionally the US has believed in equilibrium. And such considerations have historically informed its prudence. We don’t want to provoke the Russians by supporting Eden over Suez. We don’t want to provoke the Russians by allowing Egypt’s 3rd army to be annihilated by Israel circa 1973. We don’t want to provoke the Russians by making the wrong move after the Syrian invasion of Hashemite Jordan. You can see the pattern.
Even over in East Asia, similar arguments have come into play. Nixon’s administration wanted to thaw relations with China as a counterbalance to - you guessed it - Russia. Communist fraternity couldn’t overcome Mao’s loathing of Soviet policy and rival troops were amassing on the Mancurian border. But just then, when all seemed to be advancing towards direct talks between Nixon and the Chinese, all hell broke loose in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). With the Bengali people seeking independence, egged on by a frosty Indira Gandhi, the Americans had a difficult decision to make. On one hand, the US government didn’t want to provoke the (West) Pakistani government of Yahya Khan by arguing for the succession of Bangladesh from his country; after all the Pakistanis were the US’s only conduit to the Chinese. But on the other hand, preventing Bengali independence would have (confusingly) thrown democratic India ever more fully into a financially beneficial Soviet alliance. [Note the current Indian government’s reluctance to fully support Ukraine for historical reasons.] The US played its hand well. Ultimately Bangladesh seceded, Nixon went to China and the Soviets were contained. But the key word here is contained. The watchword for America was maintaining necessary equilibrium. Just as Britain’s Disraeli championed European equilibrium in the 19th Century (it broke down catastrophically in WW1).
Checkmate?
But in terms of the Iran conflict, equilibrium is an inappropriate concept. As has been amply demonstrated, there is no “balance of powers” in operation. Absolutely all the important world forces, bar an impotent, diminished Russia, are fully against the Iranian regime. Azeris and Arabs. Jews and Sunnis. Indians and Brits. And the Chinese won’t get involved. Even the Pakistanis and the Taliban are fighting them! And if that weren’t enough, the Iranians themselves hate the regime.
Checkmate. The king falls.
So the only question we are left with is this: Will America fulfill its historic duty? Or is the US the only Iranian ally left? We are about to find out.
Advertisement
If you are interested in more analysis of Middle Eastern affairs, consider reading this article, archived and therefore only available to PAID subscribers. Consider becoming a paid subscriber to enjoy the full “Guerre and Shalom” experience.
Thanks for an insightful post. Great explainer.
Brilliant reasoning. But will the US understand and act? Not under the current maladministration anyway.