On the international chessboard, no piece can move as freely as the United States. It moves vertically, horizontally and diagonally, across any number of squares. Regime change in Venezuela, blockades on Cuba, strikes on Iran, all within a few months. It can move north, east, south and west.
And Iran? Iran is the opposing king trapped in a corner by not only the king and rook (Israel), but also its own pawns — the many factions inside Iran that the Israelis have been funding to rise up against it. A war against it from abroad and at home.
In refusing to capitulate, the Iranians have decided they would rather die on their feet than be checkmated on their knees in front of their rivals.
The opening gambit
By the day prior to the strikes, the US had at least 50 per cent of its deployable air power around the Middle East poised to attack Iran, including more than 250 combat aircraft. As Professor Pape from the University of Chicago notes, the US had never deployed this much force against a potential enemy and not launched strikes.
All the while, the Iranians were making significant concessions to the US, including importantly that they would even allow American inspectors into the country for verification on their nuclear programme. Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff remarked that Trump was surprised that the Iranians were not completely capitulating with this much firepower at their doorstep. But Trump had fundamentally misread the Iranian regime’s goal in entering these discussions; which was to prevent their evisceration without subjugation.
At the heart of this, is the Iranian government’s core principle after the revolution of 1979: independence (istiqlal). Iran’s refusal to give up its ballistic missile programme and support for proxies was the country stating that it would rather court war than give up its sovereignty. Consequently, the ambition of Tel Aviv comes up against the defiance of Tehran.
The Omani Foreign Minister went on CBS News the night before the strikes to publicly state how well the negotiations were going, in what seems to be a last ditch effort to avert war. Most importantly, states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Turkey were against this war. These states have been lobbying behind the scenes against the US attacking. The Saudis’ shift in stance appears to have come after Israel’s attack on Hamas in Qatar last year, and its apparent realisation that there needs to be a counter to Israeli hegemony.
However, the unprecedented compromises made by the proud pragmatists of Iran were not enough for the Israelis and their powerful co-religionists in the US for whom the balkanisation of Iran is the goal. It has now been revealed by an Israeli officer that the day for the strikes was decided weeks ago, regardless of how negotiations were going. It seems that again negotiations were used as a ruse for preparations. This is yet another indication that the Russians are right about the Americans: they are agreement non-capable. Dialogue does not matter, only the clenched fist.
A game played outside the rules
The strikes against Iran are manifestly illegal and a clear violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The Western press has already publicised the incorrect claim that Israel and the US are fighting a war of pre-emptive self-defence against Iran. As Marco Milanovi?, international law scholar points out, the use of force against Iran would be lawful only if “(1) Iran had the intent (i.e. its leadership decided) to attack the US/Israel; (2) it had the capability to do so; (3) and it was necessary to use force today, because today would be the last window of opportunity to prevent this future attack”.
None of these conditions are met and the argument for pre-emptive self-defence (even if an argument for pre-emption is accepted which many states reject) is even weaker considering President Trump said that the US had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability last year.
There is no argument of international law under which these strikes could be lawful given there was no imminent armed attack by Iran which is being thwarted. Iran now has the right to self-defence, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, to respond to these attacks.
The coming moves
Despite President Trump’s fervent belief in the invincibility of the US military, there were a number of leaks from the Pentagon in the days leading up to the war in which officials flagged their concerns about a lengthy conflict.
A long war seems to be Iran’s best bet with the US military being better at ‘one and done’ strikes like the abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro and the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. Lengthier conflicts, like Iraq and Afghanistan, are much riskier, especially given the current run on the US’ munitions stockpiles and air defence interceptors.
Wargames conducted in 2023 noted that in the event of a war with China, “the United States would likely run out of some munitions — such as long-range, precision-guided munitions — in less than one week.”
However, that is if Iran can last that long. So far it seems that the US has engaged in attacking military targets while Israel has engaged in decapitation strikes, which includes their key target: Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei. They are going after regime officials in an effort to topple it and end the war sooner. However, it may be that regime hardliners come into power and wrest control.
Iran is exporting the destruction meted upon it to the US bases of the Arab regimes which surround it. These regimes have subcontracted their protection to the Americans, and Iran has chosen to attack them for this dignity deficit. It hopes that the more damage it inflicts on them means they will clamour for a ceasefire to the Americans on its behalf. Part of this strategy may include Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz through which 20 per cent of world’s oil consumption flows, destabilising the world’s economy.
As it is with most asymmetric conflicts, Iran wins if it doesn’t lose, and the US loses if it doesn’t win.
The board after the game
On February 27, the day before Israel struck Iran, Yoav Gallant, former Israeli Minister of Defence and wanted war criminal by the International Criminal Court, wrote an article titled ‘The Next Strategic Shift in the Middle East’. I read the article anticipating it would be about Israel’s war with Iran, but it wasn’t.
Gallant’s focus of the piece was Turkiye. He advocates for a pivot to countering the Eurasian country, stating that ‘[t]he weakening of Iran is a significant achievement. But the structure replacing it will define the next generation of regional order. Turkey is already positioning itself at the center of that structure, with the military capacity, the institutional reach, and the ambition to shape what comes next’.
When the US was invading Iraq in 2003, Zionists were supporting that war but already wanting to turn to Iran immediately after, popularising the slogan “Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran.”
Thanks dawn.com
