Two weeks ago, I suggested that the complacency regarding war with Iran was misplaced and that that complacency was likely soon to be replaced by panic in the world's capitals and financial markets. The general belief was that President Donald Trump would relent, make a deal with Iran, and declare victory. Even if he didn't, the Iranian regime would be quickly overwhelmed by a combined American and Israeli attack and possibly be overthrown in a popular revolt or in the alternative, sue for peace within days.
Of course, neither of those things turned out to be the case. The complacency has now vanished. Leaders in at least some capitals are panicking, though the financial markets continue to respond in a surprisingly muted way to the risks this war poses for the world economy.
Here is the most important thing readers should understand about this war: Iran defines winning the war very narrowly. Victory for the Iranian regime is that the regime survives. Israel and the United States define winning as the fall of the current regime, leading either to a new friendly regime or a breakup of the country into various parts. And just last Friday, President Trump added that the "unconditional surrender" of Iran is the only acceptable outcome. Now consider the remarks of the Iranian foreign minister to NBC: "We are not asking for a cease-fire and we don't see any reason why we should negotiate with the U.S." He pointed out that the United States has used two previous negotiations as a deceptive cover for attacks. So, it looks like this conflict will be a fight to the finish.
Here's a second important thing to understand: To believe that the United States and Israel will prevail with air power alone flies in the face of all historical precedent. One prominent example is the Vietnam War. The United States dropped a greater tonnage of bombs on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia than in all of World War II. And, the United States had a substantial force on the ground. At its peak the deployment was more than 500,000 military personnel. And yet, the North Vietnamese prevailed.
n trying to decipher the events of this war, logic is your friend:
Since the Iranians no longer believe that the Americans will negotiate in good faith, they seek no negotiated settlement. And, the Americans and Israelis no longer seek a negotiated settlement but unconditional surrender. This means that the members of the Iranian regime and its military have no incentive to do anything but continue their counterattacks and wait for the Americans and Israelis to land a ground force in Iran to come get them. This would likely be true even if Iran runs out of offensive drones and missiles.
The general belief is that the Americans will NOT deploy soldiers on the ground in Iran in large numbers because various members of the Trump administration have said that that will be unnecessary. That expectation could be wrong. If it is, it would likely take months to prepare an expeditionary force of sufficient size to successfully invade Iran. Then, that force would have to land on the coastline of Iran and make its way through mountainous terrain that characterizes much of Iran. Logic suggests that this could quickly become a catastrophic invasion for the Americans. (I'm assuming only minor participation by Israel whose military is already fully occupied.)
Even if a ground campaign were ultimately successful, it might take a year or two to subdue Iran. In a moderately bad scenario for the Americans, it could take many more years. In a seriously bad outcome, the United States military could be bogged down for a decade or more with no decisive result.
Let's assume that no invasion takes place. That means that the Americans and Israelis are left with bombing Iran into rubble. That might not lead to a clear victory, but it would destroy Iran's economy. In response and with nothing to lose, Iran may decide to use its remaining arsenal of missiles and drones to simply destroy the oil and gas infrastructure of every energy exporting country it can reach.
The list includes some of the largest oil and liquefied natural gas exporters in the world: Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Such destruction would create a long-term energy crisis for the world. Iran has so far shown its willingness to engage in economic warfare—effectively closing of the Strait of Hormuz through which transits 20 percent of the world's crude oil and liquefied natural gas exports—even when it hurts its own economy. Why not hurt everyone else if there's nothing to lose?
I have no way of knowing how long this conflict will go on. But the longer it goes on, the larger its impact on energy prices and the world economy will be. For a comprehensive tally of what will be affected and when, read this analysis. For what exactly will be affected beyond oil and natural gas, here's a partial list: apparel (made from petrochemicals), food (because natural gas is a major feedstock for nitrogen fertilizer), copper (the mining of which requires chemicals derived from oil), packaging (made from petrochemicals), tires (made from petrochemicals) and electricity (natural gas and diesel fired power plants).
I have by no means provided anything close to an outline of all plausible trajectories for the war with Iran. I'm not sure anyone could. There are too many variables, and this is a human endeavor. Humans are much more unpredictable than nature. What readers can do is apply logic to this situation and ask whether what they are hearing from each side of the conflict and from the media makes logical sense. Much of it does not.
By Kurt Cobb via Resource Insights
Related Stories
