A number of US and UK media outlets have argued the decision to go to war with Iran depended almost entirely on the assumption that a popular uprising by the people could lead to the elimination of the top leadership in Tehran.
From the information available here in the UK it would seem this assessment was provided by Israeli intelligence to Benjamin Netanyahu who then went on to convince President Trump but what was ignored was the fact their analysis was only a possible scenario.
Based on this assessment the Pentagon were advised by the President to prepare for war and military resources and personnel were told to prepare for a brief military entanglement lasting only a few days rather than the prolonged campaign it has become and with the Strait of Hormuz being closed leading to a dramatic increase in oil prices. At the time of writing, I am led to believe the price for ordinary petrol (gas) in the US is about $4,10 (£3.10) a gallon while in the UK it is $9.35 (£7,05) and diesel being significantly more.
The core demise of this approach was that Israel assumed the Iranian people, eager to be free of the Ayatollahs and hopeful of then being able to enjoy Iran's riches would grab the chance presented by the assassination of Khamenei and the IRGC leadership.
It was a reasonable assumption based on earlier mass demonstrations on the streets of Tehran, but what it ignored, or chose to dismiss was the large-scale crackdowns that followed and left thousands of protesters dead, The hope from Israel and the US was that Iranians would continue taking to the streets with greater confidence against the IRGC but instead they sheltered from dozens of devastating attacks on their cities..
The assumption made by US/ Israeli strategists was that, much as had happened in Syria under Assad, Hussein in Iraq, and Gaddafi in Libya, the remaining regime, facing a vacuum in decision-making, would have no option but to flee.
Critics in NATO of the US/ Israeli approach are now arguing that while the majority of Iranians disagree with the regime on many issues, overall they do not object to a centralised and strict domestic form of governance, but fear a national leaderless fragmentation of their country.
External to Iran, many exiles have been drawn to the Shah of Iran/ Persia, Reza Pahlavi as a replacement leader but those within Iran see his family politically damaged because of his father's oppressive regime. What is more, is that without Pahlavi as a figurehead there is no alternative figure to take over the 'political revolution' necessary to eradicate the Ayatollah leadership.
The people largely support Iran’s regional policies, which provide it with influence, strengthen its international position, and enhance its negotiating leverage on nuclear, energy, and military matters.
Before declaring war, US and Israeli strategists assumed Kurds, Arabs, Baloch, Azeris, and Turkmen would view the regime’s weakness as a chance to replace it with a more liberal and open system that would allow them to secure rights through a new social contract and constitutional framework where they might gain equal participation in power and wealth.
However, the key failure in the US-Israeli plan was their determination to ignore historical evidence and, in particular how, in general, minority groups in revolutions seldom try to overthrow ruling systems (admittedly there are tribal examples throughout Africa but, in broad terms most of these have produced short-term regimes that have themselves been overthrown). As a broad rule of thumb, minority ethnic groups tend to view revolutions as the concern of the majority, so avoid sacrificing their own members.
Of course, if the US/ Israeli coalition entered this war fully cognisant of all these issues mentioned above then there can only be one conclusion and deeply concerning issue - and that is that both the US and Israel started this war with only one goal in mind - and that is the entire dismantling of the Iranian state. This would in many ways seem the most logical option and is consistent with the “Periphery Doctrine”, developed by David Ben-Gurion and advocates as its core principle is the dividing of states and creating chaotic entities. Indeed it could be argued that, in some respects it would be the safest option for Israel as a divided and broken Iran would cease to be a future threat to the country and, from the US perspective a disjointed Iran would cease to be any kind of threat to the Strait of Hormuz and give the US greater control of world oil supply
Political comment
It is not inconceivable that in the coming days Iran may agree to peace terms, though initial signs are less than promising and the Iranian leadership are fixed on a route that demands they find some way to save face - an approach both Trump and Netanyahu appear unlikely to accept. Already much of the Iranian infrastructure is in tatters and, if Trump is to be believed, could take anything up to 20 years to restore.
On the political front the new Ayatollah, if he is alive, and the IRGC still have a stranglehold on power and there are no signs of them being willing to disappear into the wilderness. Military strategists have long argued the only way to force the Ayatollah out would be to put ground troops into Iran. If this were to happen, the US and Israel would need to engage enough troops to face an Iranian army of over 300,000 troops. This, in itself need not be a problem as the US has done it before (during the Vietnam war the US sent over up to 550, 000 troops though it required conscription. Current signs are Americans have no taste for a ground war that could lead to thousands of casualties and deaths. It is unlikely Trump to authorise such action especially with the mid-terms approaching
The alternative is for Trump is to do as he has long threatened and 'decimate' the civilian infrastructure. He has already said ".... the entire country can be taken out in one night - and that night might be tomorrow night."
Such an action would leave Iran devastated but it would, at a stroke achieve a key war aim - the dismantling of Iran. The country would be in absolute ruins with millions homeless, many sick and injured and financially in ruins. But it would leave America in a supreme position of having virtually total control of the Strait of Hormuz and significant control of oil supply from the Middle East.
President Trump is not a stupid man, he knows how to wheel and deal - and the question has to be asked - was this really what it was all about?
The next couple of days could change the shape of the war entirely
No comments:
Post a Comment