I have been greatly disappointed by the dearth of critical analysis of the ongoing war with Iran. Although I have found a small number of generally interesting analyses, e.g. this post at The Diplomat by Youlon Nie on how the war disrupts China’s long-standing foreign policy thrust or this post at RealClearDefense by Ian Hill on how the war strengthens Russia’s position. Unfortunately, both of those articles have serious deficiencies. Dr. Nie’s analysis is interesting but doesn’t address the economic implications for China which seem immediate and grave to me. Although Mr. Hill’s analysis of the implications of the war for Russia seem sound to me and he gestures towards the implications for the war in Ukraine, he doesn’t actually examine them.
It may be that there are other worthwhile but paywalled pieces that I can’t access.
Beyond that most of what I’m seeing depends simply on the domestic political views of the author, i.e. if the author is anti-Trump, the piece opposes the war; if the author is pro-Trump, the piece supports it. I have searched the major media outlets, major policy journals, and think tank publications and found remarkably little strategic analysis.
What I find is silence.
What are the economic consequences for China? How does the war reshape Russia’s strategic position and the Ukraine war? Is regime change achievable without a ground occupation? How will the war affect America’s standing in the world?
I am neither reflexively pro-Trump nor anti-Trump. I can support good policies but will oppose bad ones. War against Iran seems like a very bad policy to me.
The arguments I have seen in favor of it tend to be consequentialist in nature. They emphasize how bad the existing Iranian regime is, a judgment with which I concur. They then make the leap that, if you oppose removing the regime by force, you either support the regime or are indifferent to the suffering of the Iranian people. Such arguments depend on the war producing regime change in Iran and I have seen no one argue convincingly that can be accomplished via air and naval power.
President Trump’s exhortation of the Iranian people which I will summarize as “We’ll remove the regime; you replace it” suffers from the weakness of going against the thrust of human history.
I have seen a few assertions that there is an active alternative “waiting in the wings” but they seem far-fetched to me. Didn’t we hear things like this about Afghanistan and Iraq in the early days of the wars there?
So, that’s where things stand as I see it. I’m confident that the U. S. can achieve every military objective with alacrity. Whether it can achieve the foreign policy objective of regime change is something else again.
If you can refer me to any good, well-argued, evidence-based pieces on the war, please leave links in comments.
The Gulf supplies 20% of the world’s oil and gas supplies. If that supply is shut down for several months, there will be a 20% reduction in the world’s GDP. That is a Great Depression.
Europe used to get 40% of its oil and gas from the Gulf, but with the reduction in Russian oil and gas, the Gulf share of Europe’s has become much larger. Europe is looking at not merely a Great Depression, it is looking at economic collapse. Actual famine in Europe and the Arab Persian Gulf states, is likely.
The US is largely self-sufficient in energy (except diesel and nuclear fuel rods, which come from Russia), but US prices are tied to world prices. Those of us who remember the oil crisis of the late 70’s and early 80’s, know what to expect. Drastic inflation dramatically raised prices for all products. Variable rate house loans exceeded 20% interest.
The Great Depression was a contributor to WW II, and the lunatics in charge of the US and EU, the newly named “Epstein Class”, are likely to start another.
WW I and WWII are often judged to be a single war. Maybe we’ll get our own Thirty Years War, only this time with nukes.
My thought was that most analysts are seeing this as a prolonged bombing campaign and not a traditional boots on the ground war. Given that Iran probably wont have real regime change and that the bombing just causes short term changes the changes are hard to predict. Also, it seems mostly being done to help Israel as it doesnt benefit the US very much so that takes away some motivation to write.
Steve
Is it just a coincidence that GOP leaders are now declaring it’s not a war, just a special mission. Why does that sound so much like Russia’s claim that they are just having a special operation?
Steve
It’s hard to do analysis when this administration keeps changing its story and saying contradictory things. It’s not even clear what the actual goal of this war is, although I’m pretty confident it’s mostly about wrecking Iran’s military, missile, and nuclear capabilities and industrial base.
Of course, the biggest unknowns are the conditions for war termination and then what comes after. The what comes after part is by far the biggest unknown. Given the historical record, I think the two most likely scenarios are:
– The Islamic regime survives and maintains control of the country. The character of the regime going forward could be worse, the same, or better – no one really knows. With the current leadership more than decimated, it’s just not possible to know where new leadership will guide the country.
– The second option is that Iran enters some kind of civil war or internal breakdown in stability. I think this one is less likely, but not by much. In this case, it’s also not possible to predict who will emerge as victor (IIRC Lenin said that power was rolling around in the streets in 1917, and the Bolsheviks happened to pick it up), but historically, it’s been groups that are the most organized and ruthless that emerge on top. The chances of democratic forces emerging on top are therefore extremely low.
Either way, the Iranian people are likely to suffer, and suffer the most, above what they’ve already suffered with tens-of-thousands killed in protest, partyly encouraged by false promises from Trump.
Its not surprising there is a dearth of quality reporting.
But I don’t think the objectives are too mysterious; an amalgam of:
1. Stop the rapid production and replenishment of Iran’s ballistic missiles.
2. An opportunistic moment to stop 47 years of direct and indirect terrorism, by toppling the regime.
3. Making sure Iran’s nuclear program is set back even further.
Those should inform the desired result. 1 and 3 have probably already been achieved. What comes after killing 50-ish in the Iranian ruling chain is still an open issue. But I don’t think the hand wringing is really warranted. Its not a riskless, perfectly clear world; its hard to imagine Iran becoming worse, although its clear the US and Israel would like the Iranian people to emerge with an actionable plan. I don’t think many people know what that entails or how feasible it is.
But again, a clipped Iran is better than an armed to the teeth Iran.
” But I don’t think the hand wringing is really warranted. Its not a riskless, perfectly clear world; its hard to imagine Iran becoming worse”
It’s very easy for me to imagine.
I think there is some hope that Iran would have a civil war and then essentially Balkanize with each ethnic/religious group getting its own piece of Iran, making for smaller entities unable to do much against Israel. First, the outcomes of civil wars are hard to predict and it could make a breeding ground for more active terrorism. Also, I am just not sure it’s especially historical. If you look at the territory of Iran for the last 500 years or so it has largely been controlled by one ruling entity. Whoever, has been able to take over a part of it has gone on to control all of it. In the past when they went through periods of being highly Balkanized it looks very much as though that was tribal based.
As pertains to the US, Iran has mostly played by Cold War rules much as Russia and China have done. It’s actually the Saudi based factions which have directly attacked the US. Could Iran devolve into engaging in those kinds of attacks?
Steve
Not 500 years, more like 2500 years.
Trump sounds like Cato elder saying “Carthago delenda est”.