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 their analysis was a certainty rather than a possible scenario.
Based on this the Pentagon were advised by the President to prepare for war and military resources and personnel were advised to prepare for a brief military entanglement lasting only a few days rather than the prolonged campaign it has now become and with the Strait of Hormuz being closed leading to a dramatic increase. At the time of writing, I am led to believe is priced for ordinary petrol (gas) in the US at about $4,10 (£3.10) a gallon while in the UK it is $9.35 (£7,05) anddiel being significantly more.
The core demise of this approach was that Israel assumed The Israeli judgement 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 by the Iranian people 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.
However, 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 object a centralised and strict domestic form of governance, but do fear a national leaderless fragmentation of their country. External to Iran, many exiles have been drawn to the Shah of Iran/ Persia, Reza Pahlavi, but many within Iran see his family politically damaged because of his father's oppressive regime. What is more, is that without Pahlavi as a figure head there is no central figure to take over the 'political revolution' necessary to eradicate the Ayatollah leadership.
It also largely supports Iran’s regional policies, which provide it with influence, strengthen its international position, and enhance its negotiating leverage on nuclear, energy, and military matters. Persians also see themselves as the country’s true owners and are reluctant to share power or wealth with non-Persian groups in Iran.
Additionally. 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 is 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 grouos 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 fuly cognisant of all the issues mentioned above then there can only be one conclusion 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 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.
Political comment
No comments:
Post a Comment