Zahid ul Hassan
WAR is merely the continuation of politics with other means”, is a time-tested dictum of Prussian General and strategist Clausewitz implying that, when negotiations and diplomacy fail, war is used to achieve political goals, ensuring that it remains subordinate to political reason.
Nevertheless, dispassionate analysis reveals that the USA and Israel’s war against Iran did not synch well with this dictum. The USA’s leadership appears to have failed to correctly conceive various phases of war. Starting from finding a plausible reason to accurately reading the global geopolitical and geo-economic environment to setting achievable political and military objectives to clearly defining politico-military strategy to defining a notion of victory to exit the conflict on a favorable note. It could not correctly map the strengths and weaknesses of the Iranian military potential, envision contingency plans, and measure the likely cost of war in various domains.
The USA’s intelligence agencies had clearly stated before the start of the war that, Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities were not ‘weeks away’ from making a nuclear bomb and that they had ‘no evidence of an imminent Iranian threat’ to the USA or its facilities across the Middle East. Conversely, according to the famous political scientist John Mearsheimer, President Trump was persuaded and trapped into the war against Iran by Netanyahu and Israel’s strong lobby inside USA because they eagerly wanted Iran to be decimated like Gaza. It implies that the USA entered the conflict and initiated ‘a war of choice’ instead of a war of necessity. Interestingly, unleashing of war against Iran did not involve the essential approval by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) or the US Congress therefore, it remains an unjust and illegal war.
Remarkably, the information provided by the Israeli intelligence agencies that decapitation of Iranian regime would instigate regime change and that military operations creating ‘shock and awe’ would cripple the Iranian military within days, went terribly wrong. 40 days of intense military operations inside Iran did not yield desired results instead, it not only inculcated unprecedented nationalism amongst the Iranian masses but Iran’s quid pro quo response wreaked havoc at the USA’s military bases and assets within the Gulf and the Israel. It is widely opined within the global strategic community that owing to certain geopolitical restraints, Iran’s response against the infrastructure of Gulf countries remained somewhat cautious and restrictive which may not be the case for future episodes. In order to hide destruction and devastation from the world, Israel and Gulf countries had to impose media blackout. So far, according to the independent estimates and media reports, the war has cost around USD 150 billion as direct military hardware expenses to the USA while indirect expenses comprising infrastructure, energy, agriculture, industry, food security, businesses and finance may well cross USD 01 trillion.
The war has seriously damaged USA’s global standing as the rational and reliable security partner. Presence of the USA bases within the Gulf countries became a vulnerability instead of being a security guarantor. The USA’s military hardware badly failed to provide promised security umbrella to the Gulf countries as it did not prove to be impregnable, could not timely replenish the destroyed assets and the Gulf regimes remained skeptic about prioritization of their security vis-à-vis Israel. The conflict also compelled USA to relocate its vital military assets from East China and European theatres to the Gulf region, prompting sense of insecurity and feelings of relegated prioritization amongst them. It also exposed USA’s military industrial capabilities to ensure timely replenishment of vital military hardware especially at geographically widely spread war theatres undergoing protracted war of attrition.
Unlike its previous military campaigns, the USA could not garner requisite geopolitical and geostrategic support from its old and time-tested strategic partners. Even the repeated requests by the President Trump could not convince and persuade the NATO members, European and Middle Eastern countries to participate in the conflict. On the domestic front, American strategic community, civil society, military veterans, media and the law makers appeared to be deeply fragmented and divided. The difference of opinion has resulted over one dozen high ranking military and civilian official to either resign or leave their jobs.
The ever-rising cost of war translated into the enhanced cost of living for the ordinary Americans in terms of energy, food security, jobs and inflation has put unprecedented pressure on President Trump to exit the war.
Dearly searching for the face-saving and exit options, President Trump agreed to negotiate Iran’s 10 points agenda through Pakistan. However, both sides have opted for extreme positions to maximize gain from negotiations. In case the USA opts to escalate to de-escalate, the situation may worsen in the form of more destruction, closure of Bab el Mandeb and involvement of extra-regional countries. Else, President Trump may introduce distraction by concentrating on Cuba or Greenland. To conclude it can be said that there is a growing feeling within the USA that it has waged war against itself and it must exit the conflict as early as possible.
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Islamabad.
