The Coming War with Iran?
An economic war will not be enough to hamper Iran’s appetite for nuclear weapons, nor will aerial boning alone be successful.
PACOM Image.
By Joshua Tartakovsky
Written on 7.5.2018; Updated on 8.6.2018
The coming war with Iran is probably a matter of time, and it will be a long and bloody war.
Let us examine the factors involved.
First, the Europeans are likely to bend to US pressure. It is not only that they do not have the stamina to develop their own independent foreign policy and that they are powerful only when dealing with weak states as Greece or Italy. It is also that in purely financial terms it is simply not worth it for them to sacrifice their immense financial relationship with the US for a relatively far smaller investment in Iran. Doing so would be overly idealistic, which the Europeans, as non-Persians, have no reason to be.
Had Russia convinced the Europeans that if they pull out from the agreement with the Iranians, a war with Iran would be easier to carry out, they would have probably not been convinced. It is not as if Merkel believes that Russia keeps the rule of law by annexing Crimea. Germany is not psychologically ready to ditch a 70 year old post-war economic order in favor of Russia and China. Perhaps after a war with Iran breaks out, the Europeans will develop their own policy, but not now when events are too theoretical.
Second, Iran is unlikely to bend. Though the Iranians are probably far more fearful than they dare admit, and are running around trying save the deal, they are not about to give up their nuclear ambitions nor compromise with the Europeans and Americans on a new agreement. While they could play for time, the US and especially Israel is breathing down their neck.
Thirdly, Israel has successfully attacked Iranians bases in Syria on multiple times. While Russia has demanded that Iranian forces leave Syria even while saying so diplomatically and even were that to happen, Israel is determined to topple the Iranian regime that called for its destruction. It has been successful in creating chaos and confusion in Iran by taking over screens at an airport for example and posting anti-regime messages. Prime Minister Netanyahu has successfully lobbied Trump to go after Iran. With John Bolton and Mike Pompeo in charge of security affairs in the Trump administration, an all out economic war on Iran is inevitable. But a deeper question is whether Prime Minister Netanyahu believes an economic war is enough or does he believe a military strike is essential. Judging by recent events, it seems that Israel is preparing to attack Iran with the US. While Netanyahu has been cautious of breaking the status-quo on most issues, for him Iran is an existential issue and one for which he has dedicated his career.
But if Israel and the US believe that war strikes from air will bring the Iranian regime on its knees, they are probably overconfident. Not only is it impossible to win wars by bombardment alone, even by missiles that can break into underground bunkers, but the Iranians are likely to fight until death as martydom is an essential element of their culture. And while there have been widespread economic protests against the Iranian regime, protesters are now likely to be repressed with even greater force or alternately unify behind the regime due to the external threats. Needless to say, if Israel did not succeed to defeat Hezbollah by aerial bombardments, it will not be able to topple the Iranian regime by aerial bombardment. Unless, of course, nuclear weapons are used.
A key to the puzzle is Iraq. The recent victory of Muqtada al Sadr, a Shiite anti-corruption leader in Iraq has changed things significantly, although this has not been made obvious yet. Of course it depends on what kind of government will be formed. But al Sadr has been wise to court both Saudi Arabia and Iran, making it clear he is not an Iranian puppet. Furthermore, he has not diminished his strong anti-US stance nor have Iraqis been fallen for the financial honey trap to vote for candidates preferred by the US and Israel. He is keen on fighting corruption and on restoring Iraq’s sovereignty. If he closes down US bases in Iraq, he creates a new Zen conundrum. On the one hand Iran cannot retaliate against a US invasion by attacking US forces in Iraq. On the other hand, Iraq will not be used as a base for managing supplies to US forces in Iran, much as Turkey refused to allow the US to pass its forces through it when attacking Iraq. An independent Iraq means Iraq leaves the NATO coalition and comes out of the equation. Al Sadr probably has the ideological stamina to withstand US pressure and attempts to pressure Iraq. And while he is not an Iranian puppet, he probably cannot be bought out by the US either. Perhaps it is simplistic, but one could argue that the Iraqis have not much to lose though things can always get worse. Iraqis are not likely to be in favor of a war against Iran, as much as many of them may dislike the Iranian regime.
If there is to be a war with Iran, and it seems likely that events are progressing in that direction, it will become very clear that it cannot be a war won by bombing alone but that a land invasion is a must. Iranians will fight until the end, and will probably lose, as they are economically weak and have overextended themselves in their imperial outreach. But will Trump want a war in which US soldiers return in body bags? That is a key question. At the same time, it is unrealistic to expect him to reach a peaceful solution with North Korea and let Iran off the hook. Iran has shown that it is eager for conflict, and does not wish to reach a peaceful compromise. It insists on developing nuclear weapons in a country motivated by a religious ideology. Israel and Russia have agreed Iranian forces must leave Syria but it is unlikely that the Iranian government will follow a request by Putin to make peace with Netanyahu. It is unlikely with an equal probability that Putin will make such a request to Russia, both since Russia does not see it as its role to dictate to Iran and as Russia may in fact benefit from a war between Israel and Iran that will place it as an indispensable mediator. Meanwhile, European countries are likely to cave in to US pressures on cutting economic ties with Iran and while they are uncomfortable with Trump’s economic tariffs they have not made the mental turnaround necessary for formulating their own foreign policy. That Iran has declared its intent to enrich uranium only reinforces the argument that an economic war will not be efficient in forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear program.
For all these reasons, following futile economic pressure, a military attack against Iran, if it is not in the works already, is likely to happen later down the road. Once it happens, such an attack, while at first limited to aerial bombing, will inevitably result in a prolonged land invasion.
