.. by Raza Muhammad Khan

THE famous philosopher of war, Clausewitz postulated in 1832, that war is the ‘continuation of policy by other means.’

But when wars are driven by religious, emotional, irrational and chaotic or selfish impulses, they often defy their control, as is evident in the ongoing US+Israel-Iran war. This war sits atop a complex layer of contentious, eschatological interpretations of biblical prophecies, through which, Israel was created by Christian- Jewish Zionists, as divine ‘reparation for Jewish persecution’. They suggest that gathering of Jews in Israel is a precursor to an ‘Armageddon’; bringing Israel to the brink of destruction, but culminating in the ‘End Times’; when surviving Jews will convert to Christianity; prior to the second coming of Jesus (PBUH).

Apart from other motives, it is essentially this prophetic ‘time-clock’ perspective that US support for Israel, is seen through a lens of inevitability. Ironically, while the Jewish Zionists disagree with this theological notion, they cleverly do not reject it publicly. But this time, such convictions have intersected with nuclear realities that have exponentially increased the risks of the Middle East (ME) war and politics. Thus, as secular rationality was wanting in US thought process and planning for this war, appreciation of the capacity and capabilities of Iran was misjudged in a dozen domains. These include disregard of its rugged terrain, (55 percent mountainous), strategic depth (over 1800 kms), control over Hurmuz for economic warfare, large indigenous missile and drone production, high pain threshold, motivation and instincts for survival, demonstrated past resilience, asymmetric warfare capacity, offensive- defence and cost effective response by Iran, based on denial of victory to the aggressors, through regional escalation-dominance and a decentralized mosaic defence.

Further, the US-Israel offensive strategy violated the first principle of war and the fundamental, guiding truths for military operations, namely, correct formulation of war aims, politico-military objectives and the end state of war. These were at best shifting, vacillating, overambitious, contradictory, vague, with incompatible means for desired ends. For instance, employment of non-contact, air and sea power alone, couldn’t achieve aims like Iranian regime or system change or its capitulation. Besides, limited US anti-drone capacity and inventory of interceptor missiles, (30 days use: THAAD: 198, production capacity 8 per month; Patriot 1000, production capacity 40 per month, both costing $ 8.1 B.), made Iranian counter offensive fairly effective. All this has compelled the US to mobilize ground troops but Iran is a vast country needing hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy. Perhaps these will be employed for limited, special operations for specific missions.

However, Israeli objectives of reshaping the ME, (like the US, after 9/11), to fulfil its politico-religious agenda of Greater Israel, stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers, could pull the six ‘Hexagon of Alliance’ partners in a forever war in the ME. Since this war was initiated with little regard to justness; respect for international norms, laws of combat or opinions of US-Israeli allies, it could transform the post-war security architecture and balance in the region to the detriment of both. Wars with Iran last year and now were started despite success of negotiations. This has greatly damaged trust in pacific resolution of disputes, through honest mediation, arbitration and facilitation. Nonetheless, some redeeming features are: First; lives of people in Asia, Europe, Africa and even in the US, have been badly affected by this war. Public opinion, the world over is therefore overwhelmingly against it and 56% Americans have opposed it.

This will surely make a difference. Second; as Trump is a pragmatist, he could redefine victory and make a deal, both to win back his MAGA base and sell it for triumph in the crucial mid-term elections. Third: as oil and gas prices spike, world markets dip, the wherewithal of war depletes, the cost of replenishment mounts and collateral damages increase, it is possible for the US and Israel to end the war earlier. Fourth: hypothesis of a regime collapse, a failing or Balkanized Iran, followed by chaos, civil war, refugee movement and theft of enriched fissile material causing regional turmoil, could encourage a ceasefire. Fifth; de-escalation could restore Trump’s badly tarnished peace maker image, while Israel may continue fighting but may recoil once the US ends it due to manpower shortages and losses. Sixth; protracted war could generate worldwide permanent anti-American sentiments. Seventh; Pope Leo’s description of US-Israeli attacks on Iran as “atrocious violence”, his call for immediate ceasefire and warning that God rejects leaders’ prayers who wage war, is a powerful message, more so for an assertive peace role of mainstream Christians.

While Iran may prefer a protracted war of attrition, its fighting stamina isn’t infinite. It’s seriously constrained by its long-sanctioned economy, safety of civilian population, leadership and critical infrastructure. Besides, the closure of Hormuz could compel affected nations to harden their stance towards Iran, including siding with the aggressors or invoking a UNSC Resolution, that authorizes international forces to open it. Thus, while Iran has a strong vote on hostility control, but on visible de-escalation and threat reduction to its survival and government, it could probably agree to a ceasefire, even if it’s a temporary. Besides, Iran can’t compel the US, Israel or others to accept a ceasefire on its terms if it rejects the same.

Historically and thankfully, political negotiations (continuation of politics) have always stayed in the background, during wars, for their management. This war shouldn’t be much different and eventually, regional diplomacy must replace it and shape its politics. The Pakistan-led quadrilateral peace initiative is indeed necessary, noble and laudable but it’s a daunting mission. It can succeed, if belligerents eschew their unilateral and rigid conditions for the sake of peace. Concomitantly, the UNSC must provide it endorsement and guarantees, possibly through China and Russia.  —The writer is the former President of NDU Islamabad.   ([email protected])