Attack on Iran

The USA no longer sees leaders as untouchable

AT PENPOINT

As predicted, the USA has attacked Iran. The main aim of the USA, removing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has been achieved, by killing him. However, Iran has responded by sending missiles against US bases in the region. Though the damage it inflicted did not match what it had itself suffered.

One of the most notable features of what the USA under President Trump has done is the removal of the head of state. The fate of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela is before everyone; he was kidnapped out of his capital. Ayatollah Khamenei was not captured, but killed. That seems more like something on the Israeli wishlist rather than the USA’s, because it was the USA which is said to have stopped Israel from killing Ayatollah Khamenei during last year’s 12-Day War. However, this time around, it seems, Trump (as usual) bowed to Israeli wishes.

He, of course, seems concerned with a replay of the 1953 CIA coup against then Iranian PM Muhammad Mossadegh. That was the last time the USA carried out a regime change in Iran.

Israel has moved far from being recognized by Iran to seeing it as its main enemy. The nuclear weapon that is being developed by Iran could be used against it, while the missile programme is doubly a concern, as it can not only provide a delivery system for a nuclear weapon, but also be provided to proxies (such as Hamas and Hizbollah) for use with conventional warheads. However, it is not so much the threat it perceives from its nuclear weapons as that from its sponsorship of these groups that it and the USA resent. This is clear from the killing in Iraq of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Maj Gen Qassem Solemaini, who as head of the IRGC’s Quds Force was responsible for developing the various forces that made Israel unhappy. The killing was carried out by US drones, but the driving force was Israel.

However, though undoubtedly a high ranking officer, there is a difference between Khamenei and Soleimani. Perhaps one manifestation of that was the fact both deaths provoked protests in Pakistan, but Khamenei’s led to a large number of deaths: at least 19 on Sunday. They showed the depth of rage within the Shia community of Pakistan.

They also put the government in an awkward situation. Even as it risked US ire by joining the Gulf Countries in protesting the attacks, it also engaged in killing its citizens all over the country, in order to protect US diplomatic missions. Protecting those missions is justifiable, but the optics are going to cost the government.

Recent events, starting from last year’s confrontation with India, have led Pakistan to try to draw closer to the USA, but this might be a little too much. It is one thing for the Gulf monarchies, which are not democracies, to place a restraint on their populations, and to support the USA even though their people do not like it. Another factor is that Pakistan is not under Iranian attack, which the Gulf countries are because of the US bases they are hosting. Pakistan faces the problem that its government depends on elections, and killing demonstrators of any stripe is electorally costly, but doing so on behalf of the USA is probably going to cost the ruling party within its own base.

The USA might find itself having brought a knife to a gunfight. War aims do not seem to be clear, which is a formula for failure. During World War II, the war aims of the allies were relatively clear: the vacation of all occupation, the removal of the leadership and the end of fascism. The occupation of the Axis countries was inevitable. The USA is trying to win this war by air power, but it does not seem to know how exactly to handle the effect of the global oil price.

Trump’s behaviour, his cavalier disregard was something of which Hitler suspected Roosevelt during World War II, and which may have helped him decide to commit suicide rather than surrender: the fear that he would be put in a cage, and be jeered at by spectators. Certainly, Hitler would have been a leading defendant at Nuremberg if he had been brought to trial, just as Hideki Tojo, Japan’s wartime PM, was the leading defendant at the Tribunal, but he was never offered any violence down to his execution in December 1948. Hitler too probably have been convicted and executed.

However, now it seems that that courtesy is not to be extended. If the opposing head of state can be taken out, kidnapped, or otherwise deposed, the USA will not even bother with a coup, but will act, presumably safe in the immunity of its own President. This is a tacit signal to other heads of government and state. None should assume that they will be an exception, for Trump has not shown himself to be particularly trustworthy. Maybe Khamenei’s security was more than that of Maduro’s, meaning that no attempt to kidnap him could be made, and he had to be killed.

One of the most painful elements in the whole episode, is Iran’s closure of the Straits of Hormuz, which was a virtual inevitability. That means, broadly speaking, that the world will lose about a quarter of its total supply. What effect it will have on oil prices cannot really be imagined, though they will clearly rise phenomenally. Already, on Monday, oil prices went up to $82 per barrel, a jump of 10 percent. One Iranian response has been to lanch attacks on Gulf oil and gas production facilities. Along with the attacks on the Straits of Hormuz, this will send up the price of oil.

This means economic disaster for oil-importing countries like Pakistan, where pump prices have gone up. Also, the oil crunch will drag the economy of the developed world towards a recession, at least by dampening demand. This means that it will be a bad time to be an exporter of anything but primary products. It will not be enough to re-open the Straits for shipping; it will be necessary to persuade insurers that there is less danger than at present. This can only be achieved by bringing down the Iranian regime, or by the present regime ceasing attacks.

Even as the attack began, diplomacy began. The Arab regimes most deeply affected would like a solution where Iran does not have nuclear weapons, even though it seems that only thing that will prevent this developing into a full-fledged regional conflagration will be either Iranian regime change or restraint.

The pattern of attacks on both sides shows that while Iran cannot take on the USA, it can certainly take on the Gulf states hosting US bases. However, it is unlikely it can use ground forces in the quantity it would need to obtain any worthwhile results. The USA, or at least Trump, are now feeling the need for ground forces. Though he has said that ground forces can be moved in, it is difficult to see how. For a start, it would take some time to get troops into position. It is one thing to take a few casualties in attacks on bases. It is another matter to put troops in harm’s way.

The alternative is difficult to see. From the time of the advent of military and naval aviation, the possibility of achieving victory solely through the exercise of air power has been raised, and even vociferously argued by proponents, but typically, ground forces are required to consolidate the initial disruption caused by air power. The only US hope would be for a regime change, which does not seem to be happening.

The USA might find itself having brought a knife to a gunfight. War aims do not seem to be clear, which is a formula for failure. During World War II, the war aim of the allies were relatively clear: the vacation of all occupation, the removal of the leadership and the end of fascism. The occupation of the Axis countries was inevitable. The USA is trying to win this war by air power, but it does not seem to know how exactly to handle the effect of the global oil price.