Pause or preparation?

Iran and the USA still have unresolved issues

AT PENPOINT

The dilemma faced by Donald Trump had not been faced by previous wartime commanders-in-chief, but it was a problem of his own making. By signalling his intentions so clearly, he was more or less eliminating the element of surprise so beloved (and rightly so) by military professionals. The tension between surprise and declaration of intent is because while the purely military aspect requires that intentions are not signalled, the political aspect demands that the opponent be given a chance to balance the cost of combat against that of accepting the other side’s demands.

The 10-day ceasefire has merely put off the point where Trump will have to decide. The last of his series of threats, “A civilisation will die tonight” was frightening in its implications, as it made it seem that the USA was about to do the unthinkable, and use nuclear weapons. 

 It may be a saving grace that Trump realizes that military force is being used to achieve political goals, that indeed, as Clausewitz once famously said, ‘war is a continuation of policy by other means.’ However, he does seem to be sure what his policy is. He has pitched such a strong position, that it is possible that Iran’s leadership has not been sufficiently cowed by the military force shown so far to agree to those terms. That means that the demands must not be such as to be unacceptable.

However, what Trump is now contemplating is seeming out of the playbook that was used in the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO in 1999. That is given as an example of airpower winning a war. When NATO forces restricted themselves to military targets, Yugoslavia seemed to absorb it, but when NATO knocked out the power grid, and the Yugoslav government caved in, agreeing to the US demand that UN peacekeepers be let into Kosovo.

There are two takeaways Iran might have made.  First, it is much bigger, being roughly two and a half times the size. Second, Yugoslav leader Radovan Milosevic ended up facing the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. While one acts as a sort of carrot, since it remains to be seen whether the USA has sufficient airpower to knock out Iran’s power grid, the other acts as a stick. While the USA refuses to allow its personnel to be tried by the International Criminal Court, it apparently has no objection to Iranian leaders being so tried. (It might be remembered that the ICC developed from the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, in which the winners tried the losers for war crimes.

Trump himself was laying himself and his military personnel open to a war crime charge, for the destruction, even if only partial, of the electricity grid, would lead to such things as desalination plants and hospitals going offline. Of course, no one was ever tried for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so the US political and military leaderships should be safe. A more recent example is the impunity of committers of genocide is that of Israeli forces in Gaza, where war crimes have been copiously documented, but no trials have taken place, or are ever likely to.

Because the issues between the two countries have bnot been resolved, it seems that the pause is not so much for a long-term peace, as a pausev for both sides to revisit strategies and prepare for the next round. The USA in particular is in need of a pause. Its strategy is compromised in two respects: its command of the air is not guaranteed, and its ability to control events in Iran requires a ground invasion.

The problem seems to be that the USA and Iran have still not resolved their differences on such issues as the Iranian missile programme, which enables it in striking at US bases and blocking the Hormuz Strait, or the presence of the USA in the region. While this goes on, the two countries’ military machines will probably be using this ceasefire as a pause for preparation for the next round.

Before a ground invasion can be thought of, a basic assumption in all wars that the USA has fought since Korea, that of command of the air, has been challenged. While it cannot be denied that the USA has overwhelming air superiority, it does not have command of the air, where its aircraft could operate without fear of enemy air force or air defence. While Iran has not put any forces in the air, it has taken out US planes. Iranian missiles have shot down not just an Fa5, but also two F35s, which are stealth aircraft which leave little radar signature. One theory is that they fell victim to missiles with heat-seeking capabilities. An A10 Warthog has also been shot down, meaning that its sterling role in providing close air support to ground forces, may be limited.

The downing of an F15 was bad enough, but the downing of a modified C-130 carrying a Special Ops team, as well as of a Blackhawk heli, both on a Search and Rescue mission, showed that there were problems with the SAR doctrine which Iran had identified. The knowledge of the USAF’s promise of ‘ no one left behind’ has been a factor in US air superiority. To have thrown in doubt is a shock

As for a ground invasion, the USA initially did not have ground forces in the region. It also did not find that any ground forces were going to be available from its allies. It therefore had to bring in a Marine Expeditionary Force from Japan and the 82 Airborne Division from the USA.

The recent sacking of the UA COAS may have something to do with this, though he has no operational control over either. However, the general expectation is that Iran is well prepared for guerrilla warfare, so it will be able to not just resist any ground invasion, but cause it heavy losses.

A sinister development has been the ordering into the theatre of B52 Stratofortress bombers from the UK. Their primary mission is to provide the air leg of the nuclear triad, as they can carry air-launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. They are also capable of remaining in the air for prolonged periods 

The truce has been followed by the US-Iran direct talks in Islamabad which had been talked about for some time. Pakistan has taken on a heavy responsibility, for it may recall the fate of Qatar in recent times. It was not only the site of the US-Taliban talks, but it was also that of the Hamas-Israel talks. That ended badly, when Israel lobbed a missile at one of the Hamas negotiators, incidentally launching an attack on a US ally. Qatar is one of the parties in the present conflict, and thus cannot act as a mediator.

Going back to the Paris talks between the USA and North Vietnam, during them, the USA launched a massive bombing campaign of North Vietnam in December 1972. This was to ensure that North Vietnam established a permanent peace. Pakistan should be aware that neither the USA nor Israel can be trusted to eschew violence if they see an advantage. Pakistan should also be aware that the USA has a track record of using hostilities as a negotiating tactic.

Keeping the peace will prove a tremendous undertaking, mainly because the underlying problems between Iran and the USA have not been resolved.

It is not necessary for peace that there should be a complete resolution of issues. However, there must be some resolution of issues. When the USA ignominiously fled from Vietnam, a Marine hanging from a helicopter as the US Embassy in Saigon was evacuated, it had not been agreed in Paris. However, what had been agreed there was a US pullout of forces.

The problem seems to be that the USA and Iran have still not resolved their differences on such issues as the Iranian missile programme, which enables it in striking at US bases and blocking the Hormuz Strait, or the presence of the USA in the region. While this goes on, the two countries’ military machines will probably be using this ceasefire as a pause for preparation for the next round.