Former US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power once called genocidal wars “a problem from hell.” As US President Donald Trump’s administration ratchets up tensions with Iran, the world must now reckon with the prospect of a “confrontation from hell” between the two nations.
For now, both the US and Iran say they do not want a war. Yet, step by inexorable step, they are moving onto a collision course.
The US has significantly stepped up its military deployment in Iran’s neighborhood, dispatching the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East to warn the Iranian regime against taking any threatening actions. Meanwhile, Iranian leaders have decried the move as psychological warfare and regard it as a provocation aimed at drawing their nation into a military conflict.
Since he took office, Trump has been relentless in his depiction of Iran as the source of all evil — including international terrorism — in the region and beyond. He has reversed former US president Barack Obama’s policy of engagement and is exerting maximum pressure on the Iranian regime with three objectives in mind.
First and foremost, the Trump administration wants to bring about regime change, or at least a change in the regime’s behavior. It is also seeking to degrade Iran’s economy so that the nation can no longer be an influential regional player. It wants to shore up Israel’s position as Washington’s most loyal and powerful ally in the Middle East, and to forge close strategic ties between the Jewish state and Arab nations opposed to Iran, including the Gulf states — led by Saudi Arabia — and Egypt.
To achieve these objectives, Trump has withdrawn the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. His administration has imposed harsh sanctions on Iran that affect every sector of its economy, leading some foreign companies to stop doing business with the nation. In an unprecedented move last month, Trump designated the key branch of Iran’s military forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as a terrorist organization.
White House National Security Adviser John Bolton, backed by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has said that: “The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or regular Iranian forces.”
This takes the US and Iran a step closer to a military confrontation that could be triggered either intentionally or by miscalculation.
In the event of a war, Iran would not have the military capacity to stand up to the US’ firepower.
The US could quickly take out Iranian military installations, nuclear sites and major infrastructure facilities. In addition, it could prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 30 percent of the world’s oil is shipped.
Yet Iran is capable of making any US military assault — with or without Israeli and Saudi Arabian support — very costly for the US and the region. The Iranian regime might be able to sink a few ships at the Strait of Hormuz’s narrowest point — where the shipping lanes in either direction are only 3.2km wide — in an effort to choke it off. More important, Iran has nurtured an asymmetric-warfare strategy based on both hard and soft power. Although Iran lacks a modern frontline air force, for example, it has made significant progress in developing and producing short, medium and long-range missiles, which have the capacity to hit targets as far away as Israel.
Furthermore, the regime could target landmarks such as the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates — the world’s tallest building — to trigger a financial meltdown across the region.
Even if the accuracy of Iranian missiles cannot be guaranteed, many of them could still evade defensive systems. Israel’s state-of-the-art Iron Dome anti-missile defenses, for example, have been unable even to neutralize all the primitive missiles launched from Gaza.
Moreover, the Iranian regime has forged a network of proxy forces across the region. Syria and Iraq have become crucial links in an Iran-led Shiite strategic arc stretching from Afghanistan to Lebanon. The regime’s proxy forces include segments of Afghanistan’s Shiite population, Iraqi Shiite militias and Hezbollah, which controls southern Lebanon and has thousands of rockets ready to target Israel. Indeed, Hezbollah emerged from its 2006 war with Israel stronger than before.
In addition, Iran can mobilize thousands of extremely dedicated suicide bombers to sacrifice themselves for the cause of Shiite Islam and nationalism that the regime has successfully promoted. These bombers are embedded within the Iranian security forces and across the region.
The Iranian regime has worked hard to strengthen its national security within a supportive regional framework, so in a conflict with the US, Iran would not be a pushover. On the contrary, any major military assault could result in an uncontrollable regional inferno.
Both sides have good reason not to start a war.
Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies (the Middle East and Central Asia) at Australian National University. He is the author of Iran Rising: The Survival and Future of the Islamic Republic.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under