Brian M Downing
Over the last week Iran has been accused of attacking more oil tankers near its shores. It responded to the deepening tensions by announcing intentions to exceed uranium-enrichment limits set by the JCPOA – an agreement the US walked away from long ago.
The US is blaming Iran for the tanker damage and sending more troops to the Gulf. Whether by design or accident, open hostilities may erupt. Then what? Wars seldom unfold the way planners think. If they did, Iraq and Afghanistan would be stable democracies and US troops would be home. Let’s consider what’s going on what may come.
The nature of the conflict
Largely forgotten amid the tensions is that the US is getting involved in a conflict unrelated to its national security. Tensions today are the latest flare up of a sectarian rivalry that began with a succession debate in the 7th century. The Sunnis of Saudi Arabia see Iran today as a threat but this view is shaped more by religious passions (and dynastic ambitions) than by rational assessments.
A conflict that has been underway for centuries isn’t going to end, no matter what the US does. It will continue far into the future. Policy makers and analysts would do well to ask three things. Is the scenario of a short, limited war realistic? Will our chief ally, Saudi Arabia, exist in a few decades – and will a conflict hasten its demise? Isn’t Saudi Arabia getting us to do its fighting?
What will success bring?
Armed conflict and sanctions could lead to fiscal and legitimacy problems in Tehran. Indeed, Washington and its allies seem determined to bring turmoil if not collapse. This may appeal to the Sunni powers (which, incidentally, are unlikely to take a major part in hostilities) but it brings nothing positive to US interests. Fragmentation could lead to chaotic, ungovernable Sunni regions in Iran’s Arab west and Baloch southeast. They might become havens for al Qaeda and ISIL bands. The US would do well to seek to balance Saudi Arabia and Iran against each other, bringing greater stability to the region.
Saudi power
If Iran were gravely weakened, it would be a tremendous boon to Saudi Arabia. It would be the undisputed power in the Gulf, the GCC states would be even more beholden and Riyadh will gel an alliance of Sunni powers from Morocco to Pakistan – a new caliphate of sorts, with Riyadh its heart. The alliance will be led by Mohammad bin Salman, as ruthless and ambitious and wealthy as the region has known since the days of the sultans.
This would be a death knell for democracy in the region. Jordan, Tunisia, and Algeria ah remade steps toward representative but a triumphant MBS will use his money and political clout to get them in line. This Sunni league would inevitably come into conflict with Israel over issues such as the West Bank and the Temple Mount. Hostility toward the Jewish state is deeply embedded in Wahhabism and the rest of Saudi culture.
US allies
Friendly countries in Europe, South Asia, and East Asia have backed the US in numerous efforts, including the one that brought the JCPOA. They do not back Washington’s Iran policy. They do not believe claims of Iranian violations and see rising oil prices weakening the world economy. They see Iran as a potential trading partner of 75 millions people with growing disposable incomes.
Perhaps most worrisome, they see the US being led into war by small Middle Eastern states. And this comes at a time when greater attention should be paid to growing dangers posed by the Sino-Russian alignment.
Prospect of escalation
Conflict in the Gulf could be short and decisive. However, it might well drag on. Iran could intermittently harass and attack tanker traffic. Small boats, fighters, sea mines, and even artillery could accomplish this. Iran could take the war to its east in Afghanistan. The US is eager to be done with that conflict but support to the Taliban would delay this and cost more American lives.
China and Russia are eager to weaken the US. They want the preponderance of influence in the Gulf and the lion’s share of its lucrative arms trade. They are positioned use diplomacy to ease tensions, perhaps in concert with many American allies. That would be an embarrassment. Alternately, they may deliver sophisticated new weapons to Iran or place naval and air assets there. That could be a humiliation.
Winston Churchill knew a thing or two about the Middle East. He brought a good deal of it under British control. He also knew something about war:
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realise that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
© 2019 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.