Summary: Martin van Creveld, with a front row seat and deep knowledge, provides an update on Trump’s most belligerent foreign policy action. It is, of course, a farce.
Crisis? What Crisis?
By Martin van Creveld. From his website, 6 June 2019.
Posted with his generous permission. Links added.
Weeks have passed since The Donald, by announcing the U.S withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iran nuclear deal, aka the Iran deal), started a “crisis” in the Middle East. Such being the case, it is time to draw at least a temporary balance as to what happened, what did not happen, and what is likely to happen in what is known, euphemistically, as “the foreseeable future.” So here goes.
Iran was and remains the largest and most powerful, state in the region around the Persian Gulf. That this Iran has its ideology, its interests, its objectives, its phobias, its friends, and its enemies just as any other country does hardly requires saying, To be sure, Iranian policy has its peculiarities. But no more so than that of any others.
As far as anyone knows, the Mullahs have now been working on their nuclear program, which they inherited from the Shah, for some thirty years. {Editor’s note: almost certainly not true. See below.} As far as anyone knows, Trump’s new sanctions have not caused them to greatly accelerate that program or sharply change its course towards bomb-making. The step they, responding to Trump, have taken, i.e. increasing the enrichment of low level uranium, is mostly symbolic, though this might change later if and when they feel they are in real danger of coming under attack.
As was to be expected, the U.S-led sanctions on Iran, while making life difficult for many ordinary Iranians, have not worked. Nor are they very likely to work in the future. To be sure, many Iranians have no special love for the Mullahs’ regime, which they see as fanatical, oppressive, corrupt, and unnecessarily bellicose. They would certainly like to get rid of it; however, they seem to dislike foreigners meddling in what they see as their own affairs even more. This aspect of the matter, whose importance is paramount, would surely remain in place even if the Mullahs were to disappear tomorrow.
The Houthi rebels of Yemen, presumably armed and instigated by Iran, have mounted some attacks on Saudi and other Gulf country targets. Going from strength to strength, they have shown that the Saudis are as incapable of giving a good fight as they were back in 1991. More attacks, apparently meant to deter the Americans without provoking them too much, are likely to follow. Nevertheless, contrary to the fears of many there has been no dramatic increase in terrorism in the Middle East.
Contrary to the fears of many, too, there has been no dramatic increase in the price of oil. To the extent that the price has gone up, the greatest beneficiary has been America’s competitor, i.e. Russia. For your attention, Donald.
For Tehran, opposing and threatening Israel is the red flag with to attract sympathy and allies in much of the Arab world. For Netanyahu, Iran is the rod with which to attract followers inside Israel. He continues doing his very best to get the U.S to launch a war against Iran, and will surely go on doing so as long as he remains in the prime minister’s office and out of prison.
The “crisis” has caused some Arab countries, notably those of the Gulf, to further tighten their already quite close relations with Israel. To that extent, Israel has also benefited from it.
Trump’s bluff has been called. For all his bluster, he has not brought the Mullahs to their knees. Nor did he start a war, nor reinforced his forces in the Gulf nearly to the point that would be needed in order to do so. The telephone number he gave the Swiss has remained unused, leaving him in a weaker position than previously.
Meanwhile, some of the heavyweights in Beijing may not be at all averse to witnessing this latest show of American weakness. That weakness is certain to have consequences later on, though when they will emerge and what form they will take is hard to say. As in the song: “Don’t know where, don’t know when, but I know we’ll meet again.”
Finally: The Europeans do not count, since all the important decisions are made over their heads. As usual.
—————————
Editor’s note
About Iran’s nukes.
Any medium-sized industrialized nation can build a nuke in a decade. Small, poor, slightly industrialized North Korea did so in 20 years (started ~1986, first successful explosion in 2006). Iran began their program earlier, perhaps (as MvC notes) under the Shah. Iran was predicted to have nukes when North Korea was just starting their program.
“Iran is engaged in the production of an atomic bomb, likely to be ready within two years, according to press reports in the Persian Gulf last week.”
— Jane’s Defense Weekly, 24 April 1984.
The likely reality is that Iran did not have a serious nuclear program for most of that time (see Wikipedia). The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported that “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” That was a horrific mistake by Iran’s leaders, for which they might pay dearly. As Otter said to Flounder in the classic film Animal House
“You f**ked up. You trusted us!”
For more about this, one of America’s most successful propaganda campaigns, see Fear Iran’s nukes, coming very soon since 1984. Also see What happens if Iran gets nukes? Not what we’ve been told.
About Iran’s navy.
Iran has two navies. First, the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy – a conventional force. Second, the Navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – an unconventional force designed for asymmetric warfare. We saw how they might win in the Millennium Challenge 2002 war games, one of the largest (perhap the most expensive) ever done. The “Red” force simulate Iran, and was commanded by Paul K. Van Riper (Lieutenant General, USMC). From the Wikipedia entry …
“In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces’ electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue’s navy was “sunk” by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue’s inability to detect them as well as expected.”
About the Author
Martin van Creveld is Professor Emeritus of History at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and one of the world’s most renowned experts on military history and strategy. See his Wikipedia entry.
The central role of Professor van Creveld in the development of theory about modern war is difficult to exaggerate. He has written 24 books about almost every significant aspect of war. See links to his articles at The Essential 4GW reading list: Martin van Creveld.
OF more general interest are his books about western culture: Men, Women & War: Do Women Belong in the Front Line?
To better understand our future, see his magnum opus – the dense but mind-opening The Rise and Decline of the State
His latest book is Hitler in Hell
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about Iran, and especially these …
- Have Iran’s leaders vowed to destroy Israel? — No, but it’s established as fact by repetition.
- Stratfor: Trump’s art of wrecking the nuclear deal with Iran.
- We pay for Trump’s gift to the hard-liners of Iran & America.
- Jessica Mathews: why scuttling the Iran deal is MAD.
- New and secret alliances reshape the Middle East.
- Martin Van Creveld: Trump’s scary saber rattling in the Middle East.
About Obama’s diplomatic triumph with Iran, thrown away by Trump
Losing an Enemy:
Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy
By Trita Parsi (2017).
From the publisher …
“The definitive book on Obama’s historic nuclear deal with Iran from the author of the Foreign Affairs Best Book on the Middle East in 2012.
“This timely book focuses on President Obama’s deeply considered strategy toward Iran’s nuclear program and reveals how the historic agreement of 2015 broke the persistent stalemate in negotiations that had blocked earlier efforts.
“The deal accomplished two major feats in one stroke: it averted the threat of war with Iran and prevented the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb. Trita Parsi, a Middle East foreign policy expert who advised the Obama White House throughout the talks and had access to decision-makers and diplomats on the U.S. and Iranian sides alike, examines every facet of a triumph that could become as important and consequential as Nixon’s rapprochement with China. Drawing from more than seventy-five in-depth interviews with key decision-makers, including Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, this is the first authoritative account of President Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement.”
