More than a Trump card: How the war could really end

Neither the US nor Israel can pretend surprise at the magnitude of Iran’s response. Foolishly goaded on by Israel, the two belligerents find themselves, less than a month into the conflict, on the backfoot.

The original intention of Iranian regime change has failed, despite Israel’s Sicarii-style assassinations of senior Iranian leaders, and the US’ tired, strategy of trying to bomb a civilian population into a shocked and awed submission.

Instead, Iran has shown resilience and capability while carrying out what it had stated it would do: attack US military installations, bases, embassies and data centres in GCC countries; cripple Israeli infrastructure and cities through a disciplined drone and missile campaign; and shut down the Strait of Hormuz, to all but ships from ‘friendly’ nations. In all this, Iran has shown a mature restraint with regard to the scope and scale of its retaliation. It has only attacked critical energy infrastructure in the same proportion as those initiated against its own facilities.


However, when Israel bombed the world’s largest natural gas field at South Pars to disrupt Iranian domestic energy production, it precipitated an Iranian response that has destroyed 17% of Qatar’s LNG export capacity, shuttered the UAE’s gas plants, and seriously damaged refineries in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Trump’s immediate and implausible response was to deny knowledge of the same, a position that was corroborated by Benjamin Netanyahu shortly thereafter.


Also Read |Trump puts off threat to bomb Iran power grid, Iranian agency denies report of talks to end war

When Iranian fury remained unabated, and the strait remained closed, Israelis attacked the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz, forcing Iranians to reciprocate in kind by hitting the town of Dimona. A desperate Trump then issued a 48-hr ultimatum to Iran, threatening to destroy its energy infrastructure if it did not capitulate. For all that, in true Trumpian style, he called a 5-day ceasefire before the time period ran out, claiming that this was a result of constructive dialogue with the Iranians. His supposed interlocutors, however, deny any knowledge of the same, claiming instead that this move was undertaken to allow the price of crude to cool, and the US markets to improve.

Whatever the truth of the matter, escalation remains inevitable. And there are two potential outcomes, based on two discrete considerations.

1. Economic: With about 21% of the world’s oil and LNG, 30% of LPG, and up to 50% of urea originating in GCC countries and Iran before passing through the Strait of Hormuz, any blockade of these vital commodities, already evidenced by the price of brent crude, could spell disaster for countries that are denied access. Knowing that an all-out assault to secure the strait could be futile, and expensive in men and materiel, especially since America’s allies have refused to join this unlawful war, Trump has tried to ease the pressure by granting a 30-day reprieve on the purchase of Russian and Iranian oil.

But this may not work.

First, the EU is dead set against lifting sanctions against Russia, and Iran has already declared that they have no surplus oil for sale. Second, Iran--twice bitten, forever shy-- should not accept any ceasefire based on Trump’s word. Indeed, Iran is insisting that any oil that passes through the Strait from GCC countries must be yuan denominated.


Also Read | Oil falls over 13% on Trump postponing military strikes on Iran energy infrastructure

This is a serious blow to the petrodollar, which is already struggling with the aggressive reduction of dollar holdings at central banks--well below 60% on average--in favour of gold, an upcoming government bond auction to finance earlier treasuries coming due at a rate 7-8x than before, which could result in annual interest payments greater than $1 tn, and the very real threat of stagflation in the run-up to US midterm elections later this year.

Hypothetically, Trump could end this war by walking away from it. But Iran insists that for it to accept a peace deal, the US military and its corporations must quit the Gulf, the US must pay reparations, lift all sanctions, and allow Iran full sovereignty with regard to commerce and defence. To accept these terms would mean loss of US hegemonic prestige, irreversible slide of its currency, collapse of its dominant defence and AI industries which are largely dependent on GCC funds, and dereliction of support for Israel, the last of which is now, unfortunately, inextricably connected with the first three factors.

So, despite Trump’s assurances, if such things really exist, and rumours that Washington is arm-twisting GCC nations into writing multi-trillion dollar cheques to fund the war, he is likely to attempt a ground and sea invasion, which could be disastrous. If Iran really does buckle under the strain, it is more than likely that first Russia, and then China, will join the conflict with forces or materiel support. This could result in the first unequivocal American defeat since 1942, when US troops unconditionally surrendered to the Japanese at the battle of Bataan.

Such a debacle would resonate globally, possibly transmogrifying GCC countries along ethnic lines, concentrating CENTCOM in Israel for future mischief, and destabilising West Asia and world trade for decades.

2. Deterrence: This could be temporary or permanent. The former could be initiated if China, Russia, India or any set of BRICS+ countries were to sternly admonish Trump and force a temporary ceasefire. But this would only hold until the US has rebuilt its diminished stockpile of Tomahawks and Patriot missiles, and is led to another conflict by Israel in its quest to dominate and annex large parts of West Asia.

Far more meaningful would be for Trump to waffle while this destructive-but-not-catastrophic ‘phoney war’ continues, allowing Iran to enrich its uranium and acquire nuclear capability. This would be the moment when the US would finally be allowed the breathing room to weigh its options and turn a deaf ear, with or without Trump at the helm, to Israel’s bellicose importuning.

Then the real business of deterrence--that of containing militant Zionism--could begin in earnest. If nothing else, the resignation letter of Joe Kent, head of US Counterterrorism Center, has sowed in the minds of even the most sceptical portion of the MAGA base the niggling suspicion that Israel has, over the last 5 decades, systematically suborned Congress, the executive, and media into subverting the US’ institutional and military machinery toward supporting Israel’s excesses, even when those transgressions included illegal occupation, waging unnecessary war, and shielding indicted political actors from facing trial for genocide.

This may be the best solution for a lasting regional peace, one acceptable to Iran and its neighbours, because it takes care of the root cause, rather than the often fallaciously exaggerated symptoms. Judaism should not be conflated with Zionism. Nor should Zionism’s settler-colonial aims be allowed to cloud the chance for real harmony in West Asia.

Ultimately, such an end will give not only peace but also multipolarity a real chance, in which the US can still play a significant role in making sure that other rising powers contain their growth ambitions and risk appetites under the aegis of an enforceable international law.