US-Israeli War on Iran: Tactical Success May Not Add Up to Strategic Victory

“I may do it,” Donald Trump had said on Wednesday on the issue of joining the Israeli attack on Iran, or “I may not do it… Nobody knows what I’m going to do.” The next day the White House official spokesperson noted that the US president would decide in two weeks. But in the end, the decision to attack came in just three days, on Saturday, indicating that the time-line and statements were probably part of a deception plan.

In fact there are good reasons to believe that the war on Iran has always been a joint Israeli-American venture. From the outset, US anti-missile systems have been used to defend Israel against Iranian missiles and US intelligence aided the strikes on Iran. Now US aircraft have bombed Iranian nuclear sites to “finish” the job begun by the Israelis.

The problem is that “finishing the job” may be a lengthier process than most people assume. Indeed, the American attack can lead to Iran leaving the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and eliminating the International Atomic Energy Agency’s oversight on the Iranian nuclear capability.

There can be little doubt that over the years Iran has built other ultra-secure sites and dispersed its nuclear capabilities. Spreading 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium – the amount of hitherto safeguarded material the country possessed – over a dozen small enrichment facilities is not too difficult a task.

Countering this would require a ground invasion, for which the Americans don’t have the stomach, or a bombing campaign against alleged secret sites that goes on and on.

Worse, it could lead to Iran eventually fabricating a nuclear device. Which could lead to a set of consequences too horrible to contemplate.

On the other hand, Iran may decide to swallow the poison chalice again and sue for peace and the Israel-American war on Iran could end.  But there could be deeper damage—the Iranians would not trust the countries that had attacked them; in turn, Israel would not trust a country that has been left largely intact. The kind of peace that Israel seeks requires the permanent emasculation of Iran. Whether the Iranian people are game for that is another matter. Actually, whether the US and Israelis are capable of effecting that state of affairs is also questionable.

In retrospect, the Israeli-American plan was hatched the moment it became clear that Iran was not ready to accept the maximalist American position that Tehran give up its right to all enrichment of nuclear materials. Earlier it has appeared that a compromise had been possible with Iran accepting enrichment at 3.67 % – the limit that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement with the P5+1 had set and which had Iran had committed itself to until Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018.

Though the US had decided on war, they went through the charade of pretending they would continue to negotiate with the Iranians. At the end of May, they gave Iran a proposal for creating a regional consortium that would enrich uranium outside Iran, a proposal not agreeable to Tehran. But the fact that on June 13 the Israelis targeted Ali Shamkhani, the chief negotiator in the nuclear talks with US special envoy Steven Witkoff  is an indicator of the real intentions of the US. Neverthless, the charade continued. Witkoff held several rounds of phone conversations with the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi even after the Israeli strikes.

The Iranians told the US that they would return to the talks if Israel gave up its bombing campaign. On Friday, the foreign ministers of France, Germany, the UK and the EU met their Iranian counterpart in Geneva to prevent further escalation of the conflict. Iran expressed its willingness to consider diplomatic solutions, but the advice given by the Europeans was for Iran to engage with the US. Clearly, the Europeans no longer mattered.

Now, the Americans say that it has been conveyed to Iran that the US will not go beyond its Saturday bombing of nuclear facilities unless Iran retaliates. If they do not, the US will walk away.  In other words “regime change efforts are not planned.”

The American moves are part of a longer run strategy that will see a castration of Iran. Conventionally, military strategy speaks of deterrence, or discouraging the adversary by instilling the fear of consequences. But what the US is seeking is something that the allied powers sought against Germany after World War I, and it could have similar medium term consequences in Iran.

The end consequences of the Israeli-American military campaign is to provide them complete military control of  the Middle East. Israel will be more secure but this could engender a false sense of security and hubris. China and Russia which have largely stayed out of the events of the last two weeks may feel bound to react at this stage to undermine the newfound sense of American regional primacy.

The repercussions on the world will be larger. After all, two nuclear armed states have bombed a non-nuclear weapons state, and that, too without being attacked. More and more countries will look for opportunities to fabricate nuclear weapons as a true guarantee of security. Even before Israel’s Operation Rising Lion and the US’s Midnight Hammer, Trump’s policies had alarmed allies who currently live under the American nuclear umbrella – raising questions that might have been considered unthinkable a decade ago.

One man must bear full responsibility for what has happened and its consequences—Donald Trump. The world community was united in the belief that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and that was the basis of the JCPOA of 2015. Trump tore up that document, began a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran and assassinated its key general, Qassem Soleimani. Iran got another decade to press ahead to the point where it has accumulated enough enriched uranium to make several nuclear weapons.

Trump must also bear responsibility for fouling up the negotiations to restore the JCPOA. Initially he articulated the red line of “no weaponization” but under Israeli pressure halfway through the talks he shifted to “no enrichment.”

There are reasons to believe that Israel attacked Iran to prevent the US-Iran nuclear agreement. Trump’s expression of thanks and congratulations to Netanyahu in his speech announcing the American strikes on Saturday evening tells its own story.

As for the present, there is no saying where the future will lead us. Given its history, it is difficult to accept the US word that it is not interested in regime change. Efforts in that direction could lead to civil war and anarchy in the country with repercussions for its immediate neighbours.

On the other hand, if the regime does survive, it may turn decisively to the weapon of the weak – terrorism.

Where once we had hoped that globalisation would lead to a world order in which trade, talent and innovation would steadily enrich countries, we are now faced with an uncertain world where might is right and the strong make the rules.

The article appeared in the thewire