Gérard Araud – Did the United States lose the war against Iran?

The paradox is there: on the one hand, the Americans and Israelis are masters of the Iranian sky and can strike their enemy where they want and when they want but, on the other hand, the Islamic Republic not only shows no sign of conceding its defeat, but has taken the world economy hostage via the Strait of Hormuz. In Washington, apart from Trump who is shouting victory, everyone is aware of the impasse, from which it is difficult to see how to emerge with their heads held high. The choice is binary: war or negotiation.

Massively resuming strikes to destroy Iran’s infrastructure would certainly be possible, but why would they succeed in achieving what they failed to do in 37 days of bombing? Furthermore, this country still has the military capabilities to inflict substantial damage on the region’s oil and gas installations.

In this regard, the turning point was his response to an Israeli attack, on March 18, on a terminal at the South Pars gas field, which it operates with Qatar: he targeted the installations of this country and inflicted destruction on them which will require years of repairs. Trump then immediately stopped any strikes on energy infrastructure.

Lack of solid guarantees

The lesson was clear. There is no doubt that it was understood, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Tehran thus announced to everyone that the resumption of fighting would risk ending in devastating blows to the economy of the region – and therefore the world. As for unblocking the Strait of Hormuz by force of arms, the success of the operation would be hypothetical not only on the ground, but also because of the probable reluctance of insurance companies to then authorize the resumption of passages, for fear of mines and a possible Iranian response.

There remains the negotiation. But it comes up against the Iranians’ conviction that they won the war and their desire to reap all the benefits of their victory. Furthermore, they place no trust in their enemies who have proven, on several occasions, that they do not respect their word: attack during a negotiation, targeted assassination of Iranian negotiators, non-compliance by Israel with a ceasefire, American blockade in contradiction of an agreement, etc.

In this context, it is inevitable that in Tehran, we see in talks only a screen to resume strikes by surprise. A solid guarantee that this would not be the case, in the form of a public commitment with no escape, is therefore essential in their eyes.

Hormuz, the most spectacular gain

Furthermore, it appears highly unlikely that they will give up control of the Strait of Hormuz, which has proven to be extremely effective and has put Iran in a position to impose its will at the expense of the world economy and any country that is hostile to it. More effective than a nuclear weapon, we can conclude in Tehran.

A winner, since this is how the Iranians see themselves, does not give up the most spectacular gain of his victory. This control, whether it takes the form of a toll or not, would clearly demonstrate that free passage depends only on the good will of Iran, which would derive prestige and power well beyond what they could have been before the Israeli-American attack.

Negotiation impossible or, at the very least, complex and powerless force, then remains the armed face-to-face, American blockade against Iranian blockade but what would be the consequence on the world and therefore American economy a few months before the mid-term elections? To believe that the Iranian regime will give in first is to ignore its radicalism: nothing says that after having killed tens of thousands of its citizens, it would be moved by their suffering.

The financial, economic and military order scuttled

Here again, Trump is trapped. Around him, we are therefore playing with the idea of ​​disengagement accompanied by cries of victory, leaving the region to resolve its problems. A failure covered by the clamors of the president and his supporters: it would not be the first time, but what would be the consequences in the medium and long term?

After all, one might respond, the United States, since 1945, has lost wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan…) while remaining a superpower. Why would it be any different today? First of all because it would be the end of a pillar of their power, the Gulf States, which they would not have protected and which would therefore be obliged to seek their salvation elsewhere, while undergoing a form of Iranian tutelage. Would they continue to support the empire of the dollar, which is based in part on its use for the purchase of gas and oil?

Then because it would have been highlighted that not only has the gamekeeper joined the poachers but that it is possible and necessary to protect oneself from them. Finally, because each State would have no other recourse than an equalizing arms race in a pure logic of balance of power. Trump would therefore not only have been defeated in the short term but would have scuttled, at the same time, the financial, economic and military order which has always allowed the United States to repair its disasters.