Are we on the brink of an armed conflict between Iran and the US? This is one of the big questions these days. The answer is not easy, nor can it be definitive. The risk can be considered imminent, in reality. However, the costs for both sides and for the world would be so overwhelming that it is necessary and urgent to find an understanding between the parties.
Mediation should be carried out by states in the region or by the most influential members of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, some closer to the Sunni interpretation of Islam, others to Shiite practice, as long as they are accepted by the USA and Iran. The ideal would have been to attribute responsibility to the UN or India. Unfortunately, neither the UN Secretary General nor the Prime Minister of India have sufficient credibility in this case. Narendra Modi burned his bullets in relation to the Middle East from the moment he decided to base his political power on attacking his country’s Muslim citizens. He is an autocrat who plays the ethnic card and populism when voting to stay in power. As for António Guterres, he has no weight in Washington and is seen in Tehran as a Westerner, outside the region and at the end of his path. He is seen as the secretary general of humanitarian causes and little else. For many, it lacks the political dimension, the necessary genius for resolving conflicts. The fact is that Guterres had the bad luck of the Távoras. Two Trump terms, each one even worse than the last, is really bad luck.
The truth is that we have seen a huge military escalation in the Persian Gulf, one of the most sensitive regions in the world. This escalation could give rise to open war at any time. Anything could happen. This is a dispute of enormous complexity.
The nuclear aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is now in the Persian Gulf, accompanied by its battle group, which has hundreds of missiles Tomahawk and makes use of a large number of elite fighter jets, satellites and surveillance drones that follow closely what is happening in Iran and its closest waters.
In addition, the US has the presence of tens of thousands of military personnel operating in five bases spread across the region. They also constantly police the Strait of Hormuz, a fundamental route for the supply of oil, especially to China, but also to India. If the USA or Iran open a combat front in this crossing zone, they will be preventing, or at least hindering, the daily transit of around 20% of the world’s oil and liquefied gas trade. The economic impact of this confrontation would be dramatic, both for the region and for the economy of China and numerous other countries.
Few would be interested in a crisis of this type. It is, however, difficult to believe that a deployment of American forces of this impressive size deployed to Iran’s neighborhood has only deterrent objectives, no matter how much people say otherwise.
On Iran’s side, its military capacity is much lower than that of the United States. Currently, after the defeats of its allies in Lebanon (the Hezbolah group), Syria, Yemen and Gaza, its strategic strength is based, above all, on three pillars: the vast and diverse ballistic arsenal it possesses, the production of drones in large quantities and the possibility of preventing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and even in the Bab el-Mandeb area, the maritime funnel that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and by extension to the Indian Ocean. Bab el-Mandeb is a vital route, through which a significant part of world trade traditionally passes.
In reality, when thinking about Iran, it is necessary to take into account a fourth pillar: religious fanaticism and the respective fierce dictatorship that sustain Iranian political power. It was this explosive mix of fanaticism and disregard for human life that formed the basis of the barbaric repression against the population last month, which caused an incalculable number of victims. The conclusion is simple: by the standards of modern humanism, the regime of ayatollahs lives in a world from 500 years ago, in the middle of the dark ages. It cannot be accepted today, no matter how much respect we have for national sovereignty and the internal politics of each State. This message should be sent by Guterres to Xi Jinping, to remind him that the sovereignty of each State depends first on respect for the dignity and Human Rights of its citizens.
Xi Jinping could, in fact, start by taking into account the principles that Deng Xiaoping had adopted after the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. Deng was the promoter of “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, that is, the leader who modernized China: he opened the economy beyond State control, allowed foreign investment and put an end to famine agriculture.
Xi Jinping bets above all on absolute power, as in Mao’s time, on unbridled economic capitalism, and on China’s rivalry and competition against the USA, as his personal brand. It is, above all, concerned with China’s supremacy in the military, technological, economic and geopolitical domains. That’s why it makes the mistake of aligning itself with powers that think about geopolitics in the old way, as is the case with Iran and Russia, another of the great allies of the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran. Xi sees the future as a rivalry between his country and the United States, which proves that he views global challenges and international solidarity as mere trump cards in China’s geopolitical game on the international chessboard.
If Iran can only count on allies of this caliber, the answer to my initial question will have to be: there must be determination, a lot of diplomacy, and absolute respect for citizens and peace.
International Security Advisor.
Former UN Deputy Secretary-General
Leave a Reply