Monday Commentary: The war nobody wanted, but that may end up harming everybody

The war nobody wanted, but that may end up harming everybody

The war of the United States and Israel against Iran has entered its third week. Not a very long time, some would say, but enough already to have changed the Middle East, not in any good way. As the BBC veteran Security Correspondent, Frank Gardner, put it, the war has put a shadow over the whole region.

Nobody, except for Benjamin Netanyahu, wanted this war, not even Donald Trump. The war, unless it is stopped quickly, may end up harming everybody.

The way out is clear: De-escalate, negotiate, and rebuild. But as of today, the prospect for that appears distant.

The Gulf countries caught in the middle

The six GCC countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Kuwait, and Oman have been caught in the middle. Up to a point. They all house US bases, and the relationship of most of them with the Shia Islamic regime that has ruled Iran since 1979 has never been easy. They supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its long war with Iran in the 1980s; they hoped that their friendship and military arrangements with the US would deter Iran, which it probably did. But they wanted to avoid a full war. Oman and Qatar mediated between Iran and the US until the last moment. The GCC countries were vulnerable, and the last 17 days have shown their vulnerability starkly. Even if there is a quick ceasefire, and this is far from certain, the image that they have nurtured, with great effort and at huge expense, over the last decade has been shattered.

Iran

Iran has been subjected to the heaviest aerial bombardment in history. Its leadership has been killed. Yet it has, so far, shown remarkable resilience. The Islamic Republic endures because it is a homegrown system that has been under siege for forty-five years. It has dug in and prepared for this day. In Iran, there are those who consider the regime of the mullahs as despicable. But across the country and its ninety million population, the regime reflects society, and many Iranians see the war with the US and Israel as a confrontation with the devil. Those in Washington trying to understand Iran from their own narrow Western logic are confused and keep waiting for the regime to collapse. When it does not happen, they are disappointed.

The United States

Donald Trump did not want this war. He was persuaded that it was possible, by a fast, strong, and sharp operation, to bring about regime change. What we have seen unfolding before our eyes, and it continues, is mission creep on a scale not seen before. There is a chance this war will break Trump, but we are not there yet.

Israel

This is the first time Israel and the US are waging war together. The short and long-term implications of this have yet to be fully understood.  Netanyahu can justifiably be proud that he was able to persuade Trump to join the attack on Iran. But Israel cannot economically sustain a full war for long. The next time Netanyahu meets Trump, he will not be asking for bombs, but for money. He may find Donald Trump less obliging.

Everyone else

Where does that leave everyone else? Not in a good place. Europe has once more been sidelined, left to pick up the pieces from the disruption in energy. There are some short-term gains for Russia, but in the end, they will be negatively impacted too. China has, by and large, kept cool and aloof. It has six months of oil and gas reserves, which insulate it from an immediate crisis. But a prolonged crises will impact China too.

De-escalate! Negotiate! Rebuild!

The only way out of the present crises is first through de-escalation. A ceasefire may not be possible for weeks, but using diplomatic back channels, the US and Iran may agree to de-escalate,  or to put it more crudely, stop shooting.

It will be up to Trump to ensure that Netanyahu stops shooting, too.

Once de-escalation happens, the difficult process of negotiations can start again, focusing on the nuclear file and picking up from where discussions were left on 27 February.

This is an agreement within reach – a non-nuclear Iran in return for the lifting of sanctions. Other possibilities are possible, and once a ceasefire is agreed, the EU and China can also be involved in the discussions.

Finally, a process of rebuilding must start. The GCC have the money to do the reconstruction of infrastructure quickly. Reputational damage to their Shangri-La image will take longer.

Rebuilding Iran will be more challenging, given the scale of the destruction, and will require more money than Tehran has. Even as the bombs continue to fall, this issue needs to be considered.

In the end, no one really wanted this war, and no one is going to benefit from it. It must be brought to an end as soon as possible, but the thinking of what happens after must start now.

source: Monday Commentary is written weekly for commonspace.eu by Dr Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS Europe and Managing Editor of commonspace.eu

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)