The Geopolitical Realities

In an old television program, The A-Team, the actor George Peppard’s character had a catchphrase: “I love it when a plan comes together”. Judging by his recent column in the Washington Post, I don’t think that Fareed Zakharia quite appreciates how the world has changed over the last decade:

“The enemy gets a vote.” U.S. military leaders are fond of using that line. Gen. Jim Mattis used it so often that it is sometimes attributed to him. In fact, it is a nugget of wisdom dating back to Sun Tzu, the Chinese military strategist, who counseled that one must “know the enemy.” It describes the central mistake of President Trump’s Iran policy.

In confidential 2018 cables that were leaked this summer, Britain’s then-ambassador to Washington, Kim Darroch, wrote something that was obvious to most observers: Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal largely because “it was Obama’s deal” and had given little thought toward a “‘day-after’ strategy.” Darroch also noted that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried to put some distance between himself and Trump on this issue, privately referring to the move as “the president’s decision.” But while the decision might have been made for domestic political reasons, it has unleashed serious geopolitical consequences.

The Trump administration’s strategy, such as it is, appears to have been to double down on pressure on Iran, force other nations to abide by the United States’ unilateral sanctions and bet that this would cause Iran to capitulate.

Tehran’s initial reaction was restrained. It simply sought to bypass the United States. It continued to adhere to the deal and made efforts to trade with other countries. This failed. Because of the dollar’s centrality to the international financial system, the sanctions worked. Iran’s economy suffered a big blow, and its oil exports have plummeted. European countries, furious about the abuse of the dollar’s role, tried to create an alternative payments mechanism, but so far, it has not succeeded.

Iran’s next effort has been to demonstrate that there is a cost to this kind of maximum pressure. It has harassed ships in the Persian Gulf, reminding everyone that 20 percent of the world’s oil supply goes through that narrow body of water. It shot down a U.S. drone, signaling to the Pentagon that it has the capacity to impede the United States’ intelligence and reconnaissance in the region. And now, Tehran — possibly using proxies and allies in the region — seems to be behind a precision attack on Saudi Arabia’s main oil processing facilities, a strike effective enough that it initially shut down half of the kingdom’s oil production. The message is clear: Hostilities with Iran would spill over throughout the Middle East and disrupt the global oil supply.

I doubt that President Trump planned it this way but the effect of his strategy of “maximum pressure” on Iran was to make Iran reckless.

Let’s look at today’s geopolitical realities rather than the nostrums of a decade ago. Who would be hurt the most if oil transport could not pass through the Straits of Hormuz?

  • The petrostates of the Middle East. These are the same people who are funding Islamist terrorists.
  • China. Maybe the Chinese can build electric cars fast enough to avoid the worst effects of cutting off their oil flow but they are much more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than they used to be. They could always trim oil consumption subsidies more but that, too, would have implications for their economy and would increase unrest in China at a very inopportune time.
  • Japan. Japan imports a lot less oil than it used to and we produce a lot more. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mexico, Canada, and the United States could fill the gap caused by a disruption in supplies from the Middle East.
  • Egypt. Egypt would lose fees from oil tankers passing through the Suez. That amounts to about a half mill a pop.

Who would benefit most? Oil producers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela and Russia.

All of this presumes that we don’t go to war with Iran. As has been the case for most of our history, our best strategy remains to “put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry”.

8 comments… add one
  • steve Link

    If IIRC, Think that India and South Korea also receive a lot ME oil. We arent quite energy independent so probably see a significant jump in oil prices, so you should add US oil companies as benefitting.

    https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/No-The-US-Is-Not-A-Net-Exporter-Of-Crude-Oil.html

    Steve

  • Guarneri Link

    “I doubt that President Trump planned it this way but the effect of his strategy of “maximum pressure” on Iran was to make Iran reckless.”

    Iran has been reckless for decades. Further, I suspect viewing the Iran deal as a free glide path to a nuclear weapon was more motivating than pulling out because it was “Obama’s deal.” That’s a cheesy swipe on his part.

    In any event, it leaves a conundrum. The sanctions are working and are asphyxiating Iran. Iran is of course pushing back, and has escalated the issue by associating any SA action implicitly as US action. So now SA can’t deal with their own problem alone under Iran’s definition. It’s clever. Iran can now engage in a never ending series of hostile acts under threat of war, or they can force capitulation on sanctions or even the nuclear deal. I suspect they think we will capitulate. Given that I trust Iran as much as I trust China on trade, capitulating on the nuclear deal is not, in my view, wise. It’s the same kick the can down the road as the original treaty.

    Other than SA I cant imagine any of the harmed parties you cite actually taking action. So it’s a stare down. I’m not sure any of this changes the prescription. Be patient. Let Iran be the bad actor and precipitator. But it does mean that more than just keeping the powder dry is in order. If forced to eventually respond we should make them an offer they don’t refuse.

  • As a digression it isn’t just Republicans who are undermining “Obama’s legacy”. When Democratic presidential candidates call for “Medicare for All” they announce their intention of undermining the PPACA more effectively than all of the failed repeal votes the Republicans engaged in.

  • Guarneri Link

    Overreach. I successfully got howls of disdain from the OTB crowd when I similarly pointed out that it was gun controller’s incrementalist tendencies rather than an inherently flawed position on gun registration that cause people to balk at gun law proposals. Tents, camels noses and all that.

  • Andy Link

    “Iran has been reckless for decades.”

    On the contrary, Iran has been a very capable, intelligent, savvy and measured adversary. Compared to other regional powers, they’ve been much more competent in terms of strategy and achieving their goals.

    “The enemy gets a vote.”

    The cautionary tale in that statement is that the enemy is likely not going to fit our template, and they can come up with plans and actions that we didn’t anticipate.

  • Guarneri Link

    Andy

    I suppose it depends on the definition of reckless vs your description. A posture that has alienated many, including the Great Satan, and caused Israel and GS to entertain material military action isn’t exactly savvy and measured. And they have managed to work themselves into a position where they are currently, figuratively, being starved to death. Not very measured and savvy in my book.

    BTW – I thought your comment at OTB on the so called whistleblower thing was the, well, most measured and savvy of all.

  • I haven’t commented on the “whistleblower” thing and don’t intend to. It is so obviously another instance of partisan bickering it’s not worth commenting on. What president could resist serious criticism if every executive branch employee with a grievance could make conversations with foreign leaders public with impunity? Like it or not making those judgments is the president’s job not theirs.

  • Andy Link

    Guarneri,

    Iran has avoided major conflicts and reprisals while greatly expanding its influence and power over a period of decades. The calculated risks they’ve taken largely worked out for them. To me, that is not evidence of recklessness, it’s evidence they know what they are doing, are competent, and should not be underestimated.

    As for the President, if the allegations being reported about him peddling weapons shipments in exchange for digging up dirt on the Biden’s is true, then he may well be screwed and deservedly so. Honestly, if the reporting is accurate then I think he deserves to be impeached. But since this is US media we’re talking about, I’m withholding judgment until we have actual evidence.

    Regardless, if this gets some legs then it will hurt him, hurt Biden and leave the progressive wing of the Democratic party (Warren at this point) dancing their way into the White House.

Leave a Comment