Western media outlets have struggled to explain the US and Israel’s war against Iran because US President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei form a remarkably controversial set of protagonists.
We now know that Iran was within a few months of having sufficient missile and drone stockpiles that its control of the Strait of Hormuz could not have been denied without a full-scale war, including ground troops. Perhaps this capacity was actually achieved. If so, time is on the side of Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
It sounds hyperbolic to compare Iran’s leaders to history’s most ruthless rulers, but is it? Last week, in his first public statement, Mojtaba Khamenei reaffirmed the regime’s commitment to “the destruction of the Israeli state”. Are we to presume this is unrelated to his regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons?
Late last month Netanyahu stated, “We will not sit idly by while the shadow of annihilation looms over us.” A month earlier, Iran’s leaders had authorised the killing of tens of thousands of innocent, unarmed Iranian protesters.
It had long been presumed that if Iran were attacked, it would close the Strait. This didn’t happen during last year’s 12-Day War — mostly between Israel and Iran — which culminated with the US bombing suspected nuclear weapon facilities. Trump then prevailed on Israel to cease hostilities, which left intact most of Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities.
Iran was able to rapidly build its stock of such weapons while simultaneously importing advanced weapon systems from Russia, China and North Korea. There is well-documented evidence of deals, deliveries, technology transfers and dual-use shipments that enable advanced capabilities, including ballistic missiles, drones and anti-ship systems. The 12-Day War and the current conflict appear to have accelerated such imports.
Considering how Iran has significantly aided Russia’s war effort against Ukraine through providing drones and drone technology, various military analysts see the outline of a third world war. Economists focus on how closing the Strait of Hormuz could trigger stagflation as energy prices rise and supply disruptions limit economic growth.
This is a story in which critics are tempted to depict all the actors as villains. But this isn’t satisfactory; we must identify a desired outcome, but among key groups, perceptions of an ideal outcome vary greatly. The core conflict is mostly between Israel and Iran — and higher energy prices are a minor consideration for Israel. Instead, Israel benefits from Iran being seen as a threat to its neighbours and the global economy.
Considering how Iran has significantly aided Russia’s war effort against Ukraine through providing drones and drone technology, various military analysts see the outline of a third world war.
As Iran has attacked all its neighbours and seeks to hold hostage the ability of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain to export energy to Asia, Africa and Europe, Iran’s actions only benefit Russia, while they threaten the vital interests of many nations. The US is largely energy independent, and the political risks in the US from higher oil prices are far less threatening than the supply disruptions threatening many other nations.
Regime change in Tehran leading to a peaceful government is not Israel’s best-case scenario. Israel is better off if it is seen as the regional power that constrains Iran from attacking its neighbours and undermining their economies.
This is an appealing outcome for Israel, and it is consistent with minimising conflict while maximising the region’s long-term prosperity. This backdrop could lead to the Abraham Accords being broadly accepted across the region. That would be a true game changer.
The bigger picture is that the US wants its allies to do more to constrain the predatory ambitions of China and Russia. We will soon see if Trump can advance this objective through exploiting Iran’s blockade of a key waterway. These are strange times indeed.
• Hagedorn is an independent strategy adviser.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.