Asymmetric victory in the American war against Iran

Michael Froman, head of the American Council on Foreign Relations: And in this "wonderful new world", what fate awaits Iran? Today's Tehran is both weaker than ever and stronger than what they themselves expected.

"Michael Froman", the president of the "Council on Foreign Relations" (CFR) of America, by writing an article on the website of this think tank, analyzed the Iran war and the future of power in the West Asian region.

According to Ambassador Arjan's report, Froman wrote in an article titled "Asymmetrical Victory in the Iran War":

During the day-to-day developments of the war with Iran, it is natural to feel a kind of confusion and sudden shock (similar to a violent neck shake in an accident). Are we on the verge of an agreement or at the beginning of the escalation of tensions? Is Iran on the brink of collapse, or is it expanding the scope of the conflict? Will the situation in the Strait of Hormuz return to the way it was before, or will obstruction and occasional attacks on ships become a normal practice? These are important issues, but larger and more fundamental strategic changes are also underway. Since the 9/11 attacks and the US invasion of Iraq, the Middle East has never experienced such instability and strategic transformation.

Almost eight months - or to be more precise, two hundred and thirty days - have passed since the beginning of the war; And if we examine the performance record both at the tactical level and at the strategic level, the results obtained are completely contradictory and a combination of successes and failures.

At the beginning of the conflict, the Trump administration tried to clarify its goals. In an event held at the Council on Foreign Relations less than a week after the start of the war, Elbrij Colby, Deputy Secretary of Defense (War) for Policy Affairs, said: "The President has ordered the United States Armed Forces to conduct a military campaign focused on weakening and destroying the ability of the Islamic Republic of Iran to exert military power in the region — and possibly beyond." Secretary of State Marco Rubio specified these goals in more detail: "First, destroy their air force; second, destroy their navy; third, severely reduce their missile launch capability; and fourth, destroy their factories so they can no longer produce more missiles and drones to threaten us in the future."

According to these goals, the war has been able to achieve a major part of what it intended. According to any measure, Iran now has less military capabilities and its economy is much more under pressure than in the past. According to Trump administration officials, Iran's navy is now resting at the bottom of the ocean, and the country's missile capabilities have been significantly weakened. Of course, achieving these results was not without cost. Twenty-one US soldiers and more than a thousand Iranian civilians have lost their lives. In addition, the United States has consumed a significant portion of its critical munitions that were needed for its other strategic commitments and priorities. With the stockpile of Patriot interceptor missiles and THAAD missiles dwindling, the United States now faces increasing challenges in maintaining its military posture in other parts of the world—particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

Taking a broader view, if the purpose of "Operation Epic Fury" was to prevent Iran from exerting its power outside its borders, it must be said that this operation probably had the opposite result.

It can be said that the most important achievement of this war was the revelation of "asymmetrical" power. Tehran knew from the beginning of the war that it did not have enough direct fire power to defeat the United States; But he realized that he could turn his biggest asset — that is, control over the Strait of Hormuz — into a powerful economic weapon by using a relatively small number of missiles, drones, and sea mines; A weapon that allows Iran, at least at the current stage, to influence the world economy.

The consequences of this situation on energy prices, inflation and the purchasing power of people in the United States prompted the President of the United States, Donald Trump, to conclude an agreement with the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin last week, according to which the sale of millions of barrels of Russian diesel will be allowed. This move - which has been met with protests by Europeans and Ukrainians - will pour more financial resources into the Russian war machine and has caused a rift between the United States and Europe and Ukraine; Which makes the way to end this destructive and complicated war even more difficult.

The scope of Iran's influence is felt even in the rural areas of England. Following concerns about a possible terrorist attack (probably sponsored by a government) against the British Royal Air Force base at "RAF Fairford", the United States withdrew its B-1 long-range bombers - which had played a key role in the war against Iran - from this base. Iran had previously tried to take measures beyond its borders to assassinate foreign officials involved in the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; But a possible attack on a military base of a NATO ally could be one of the most striking examples of Iran's self-confidence—despite the blows it has suffered since February.

Meanwhile, near the borders of Iran, this week has witnessed a significant escalation of the war between Saudi Arabia and Yemen's Houthis (Ansarullah). Just last Saturday, Yemeni attacks on Riyadh International Airport resulted in the death of more than 12 people and the wounding of more than 300 others. The missile exchange comes at a time when Saudi Arabia - a model of security and stability in the region - is in a particularly precarious position. On Monday, senior executives of the world's major energy companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Total Energy, canceled their trip to Riyadh; The trip during which they were supposed to participate in the "WPC Energy Congress" - one of the important conferences in the field of energy.

In 10 days, Saudi Arabia is set to host another major global event: the annual "Future Investment Initiative" conference, known as the "Davos of the Desert." This meeting, which will be held with the presence of big investors and heads of state, is a vital part of the long-term and high-profile plan of Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, to modernize the country; A plan that aims to reduce the heavy dependence of the economy on energy exports and move towards technology, tourism and entertainment. Given current trends, I wouldn't be surprised if flights to Riyadh - assuming the airport is open - are half empty at best.

The fact that Yemen's Ansarullah - a group so stubborn and bold despite its limited financial resources - can disrupt the multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar strategy of one of the richest countries in the world is another example of "asymmetric" power. But what may be even more important is the possible impact of this conflict on the regional strategy of the United States.

Iran has long sought to expel the United States from the region. However, over the years, the United States has expanded its presence to thirteen bases in partner countries—including Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar—in order to deter aggression and promote stability, and to pre-deploy potential conflicts in the region.

As Steven Cook from the "Council on Foreign Relations" (CFR) has pointed out, Iran has completely changed the logic of the existence of these bases. Partner countries initially wanted the presence of US bases as a source of security; But now, due to these bases, they themselves have become targets for attack. They assumed that if Iran or its allied forces attacked, the United States would actively defend them; But now this issue is doubtful. After Iranian attacks damaged these bases, the United States withdrew some of its forces; At the same time, however, it deployed more mobile capabilities in the form of a third "Carrier Task Force" and an additional "Marine Expeditionary Force" in the region. If and when the dust settles, will partner countries still be willing to rebuild those bases and welcome the return of US troops to them? The long and erosive process of ending the costly wars that the United States has been engaged in for more than three decades in the region will almost certainly accelerate with this event.

And who or what will replace the United States? The reduction in the presence of American forces in the region will probably lead to an accelerated reorganization of policies and coalition networks in the Middle East. In the absence of the US "security umbrella" - which many of our regional partners thought they could rely on - these countries may turn to others, or each other, for security. At best, this situation could lead to the formation of a kind of "Middle Eastern NATO": a coalition, or perhaps a network of coalitions, among like-minded neighbors committed to their collective security.

Transforming the "Mecca Joint Defense Agreement" - which was recently concluded between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - into a more operational group is one possibility; Another possibility is the "Abraham Pacts" that brought Bahrain, Israel, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates closer to each other. Now, how will these countries try to ensure their security? Perhaps through the move towards acquiring nuclear weapons. Considering that the aim of the initial attacks against Iran was to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in this region, it is very ironic that we will eventually see other countries in the region - including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - also seek to acquire military nuclear capabilities.

And in this "wonderful new world", what fate awaits Iran? Today's Tehran is both weaker than ever and stronger than what they themselves expected. How can you negotiate with a government that is well aware of this issue? There are reports that the United States may be preparing to escalate attacks, and the Iranian regime is becoming increasingly fragile. However, the government of the Islamic Republic - just like the Iranian economy, or at least the capacity of the Iranian people to withstand economic pressures - has shown more resilience than many expected. This government can very well have a long-term presence in the geopolitical future of the Middle East; A reality that we may all have to learn to deal with.