The New Dark Age

The US military operation ‘Epic Fury’ against Iran is ongoing, but the possibility of a diplomatic resolution to the conflict is not ruled out.

Additional army forces are being deployed to the region, including special forces, airborne units, and marines. This is being done to build up the strike group and to potentially conduct limited ground operations. Such operations may embrace seizing the oil-producing island of Kharg or removing remaining enriched uranium from Iranian nuclear facilities. According to The Wall Street Journal, President Trump is considering conducting a military operation to remove approximately 450 kg of uranium from Iran.

Trump regularly boasts of the military successes of his army, emphasising that the campaign will be short and will end in a ‘brilliant victory’ in the near future.

For its part, Iran is not agreeing to capitulate and is not asking for a cessation of hostilities. In other words, Iran has been preparing for this struggle since 1988. It expected to be outmatched in the air. It anticipated strikes aspiring to behead the country and had plans for succession and decentralisation. Such a regime is unlikely to collapse or splinter. It is ready for a protracted war. It continues to counterattack Israeli territory, as well as US military, diplomatic, and economic assets in countries across the Middle East (particularly in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and Iraq). Tehran is employing a ‘dispersed tactic’ of missile and drone strikes, testing and hitting the enemy’s air and missile defence systems, while also dealing a blow to the military arsenal and economic interests of the United States and Israel. In this regard, it is significant to make note of the damaging of the US aircraft carrier Gerald Ford, the destruction of a costly US Air Force E-3 Sentry airborne early warning and control aircraft (worth up to $700 million) at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, as well as damage to an aluminium plant in Bahrain.

The intensifying airstrikes on Iranian territory are naturally depleting the Iranian side’s defence arsenal. Nevertheless, Tehran retains the capacity for continued command and resistance. The enemy has not succeeded in annihilating the underground military arsenal (missiles, drones, ammunition, etc.) or the naval infrastructure of the army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Arguably, Iran’s most effective counterstrike, with both regional and global impact, has been the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The rise in oil prices has taken its toll on the American fuel market, invoking the public’s dissatisfaction with the policy of waging war against Iran.

Among its closest allies and partners, the United States has not found any willing to join the military campaign against Iran. Each country in the Western coalition has, for various reasons, declined to take part in the military operation to break the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has not received significant military-political support from the Islamic world either. Turkey and Oman have only formally expressed disaccord with the aggression, while other countries have confined themselves to calls for a peaceful settlement. Only the Shia organisation Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis have formed a military coalition in support of Iran.

Some Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, having become one of the main targets of retaliatory missile attacks by Tehran due to the presence of the US military facilities in the region, and unwilling to sacrifice their industrial infrastructure for the sake of Israel’s interests, have begun threatening to withdraw multi-billion dollar investments from the US economy.

As the situation eases, each of the Arabian monarchies will be forced to reconsider its approach to ensuring national security, which until recent events was believed to be guaranteed by the American military presence in the country and the development of strategic defence and security ties with the United States and NATO.

Thus, the war against Iran, which has been ongoing for over a month, has reached a critical point and requires an immediate resolution.

Possible scenarios for ending the second Iranian war

In the current situation, it is clear that the United States and Israel are confronted by a strong opponent in Iran, which is putting up a formidable resistance and influencing the regional and global agenda. Iran does not accept a humiliating peace or surrender but is ready for compromises for the sake of long-lasting and consistent peace in the region.

What would constitute the end of the second Iranian war? A complete victory for the United States and Israel, a compromising peace, the conflict put on hold until the change of the Trump administration, or a protracted war of mutual attrition? All these scenarios are possible, but they are not exhaustive. Protracting the conflict could lead to catastrophic humanitarian and economic consequences, turn the Middle East into a ‘fiery island,’ and even provoke a nuclear war. It is no coincidence that the Iranian parliament is considering withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while Trump is ‘hunting’ for 450 kg of enriched uranium.

Diplomatic settlement: a path to peace in the Strait of Hormuz

A group of influential countries, including Russia, China, Turkey, Egypt, Oman, and Pakistan, has appealed to the belligerents with an urgent call to cease hostilities and resume negotiations to reach a diplomatic agreement.

During a meeting in Islamabad, the participants acknowledged the fact of negotiations taking place on the issue of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. According to reports from CNN, US President Donald Trump stated that Washington is holding a dialogue with Iran, both directly and through intermediaries. From the point of view of the American leader, Iran has agreed to most of the 15 points of the American plan to end the conflict, and the United States plans to add several more proposals to it. Furthermore, Tehran has allowed 20 oil tankers flying the Pakistani flag (two vessels per day) to pass through the Strait of Hormuz for a certain fee. This fact was confirmed by the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar.

However, for a systemic resolution of the conflict, its root causes must be addressed. In the case of Iran, this includes issues pertaining to the Iranian nuclear programme, the lifting of sanctions, and the normalisation of relations with Israel. All three aspects are closely interconnected and amenable to resolution. The Jewish lobby in the United States is interested in ensuring Israel’s security and in securing access to Iran’s energy resources for American businesses. These interests can be reconciled on a mutually beneficial basis. Tehran does not deny Israel’s existence and is, in turn, interested in expanding its presence on the global energy market. Iran supports the right of the Palestinians to establish their own state, but the experience has showcased that the countries of the Arab world and the wider Muslim community did not demonstrate sufficient solidarity with Iran in its confrontation with American-Israeli policy.

In the context of ongoing intense hostilities, priority within the Iranian power structure is given to the military, primarily the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The newly elected Supreme Leader currently holds a formal status and is seeking to balance the conservative wing (the IRGC) and the reformists (President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi).

Theoretically, given the martial law and security considerations, the IRGC could influence the Assembly of Experts and, at a minimum, postpone the election of a new Supreme Leader until times of peace and quiet set in. In return, a temporary collective body for the military-political leadership of the country could be established for the wartime period. Such a scenario was proposed to the Iranian side, but Tehran opted for a different path. For the United States, as it comes across, it is not the form of the Iranian government that is of concern, but it is rather Iran’s policy towards Israel and the energy sector. In any case, the new leader of Iran will not be able to make any key decisions without the approval of the influential IRGC.

A platform for negotiations has been prepared in Islamabad, with the participation of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that key decisions regarding a peaceful settlement of the Iranian crisis could be taken in a narrower format.

A protracted conflict with a ground operation: analysis of prospects

A complete victory for the US–Israel coalition, implying the defeat and capitulation of Iran, appears highly unlikely for two main reasons. Firstly, the considerable distance of the theater of operations hinders the large-scale deployment of American forces necessary for the occupation of Iran. Continuing such a war would cost Washington more than $35 billion per month, while also exacerbating the global energy crisis. Secondly, Iran is demonstrating a high capacity for prolonged defence and the ability to consolidate the society.

Conducting a limited ground operation, for example, on Kharg Island or at a nuclear site, using American special forces and airborne troops, carries a high risk of failure. Iran is capable of deploying superior forces to annihilate the interveners. Capturing Kharg, where Iran’s oil terminals are located, would require a prolonged American military presence, which would pave the way for serious problems for the Pentagon and could end up a military and political catastrophe for President Trump.

Alexander SVARANTS – PhD in Politics, Professor, Specialist in Turkish Studies, Expert on Middle Eastern Countries.

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel