Comments
VIEWPOINT - As someone once said and I paraphrase here: “The Americans may have the watches, but Iran has the time.” Pakistan’s defense minister Khawaja Asif put it even more sharply: “The objective [of the war] ended up being the opening of a sea passage that was already open before the conflict began.” The United States and Israel are walking toward a strategic dead end.
The outspoken Donald Trump built his name on victories. However, I fear that the war with Iran is a case that carries the taste of a bitter defeat. And into that fire of defeat, he keeps pouring oil through his own behavior. In the first week, Trump was saying “we won”; in the second, “we’re winning”; in the third, “send help”; in the fourth, “Iran wants a deal”; and by the fifth week, “Stone age threats.” At the same time, as the conflict unfolds, its objectives keep shifting. More and more Marines are arriving in the region.
Why defeat, instead of regime change? One reason is that, despite the bombings and the so-called “destruction of missile capabilities” and their air defenses, the Revolutionary Guards and the paramilitary Basij have proven to be a far tougher opponent than initially estimated. Their counterattacks caught many off guard; to be honest, the entire world was left stunned. Yes, you can eliminate Iran’s leadership –even the “ruthless leader, brilliant philosopher: Ali Larijani,” as Haaretzdescribed him– but they keep fighting. In doing so, they have turned the wider region into a theater of war and put the global economy in a stranglehold of inflation.
Iran has nearly a million-armed personnel across various branches of its military and security forces. So, is the use of ground forces –even on a small island or in the Strait of Hormuz– truly feasible? Or should such an idea simply be set aside? After all, the Taliban had around 40,000 fighters, and like Afghanistan, Iran is predominantly a mountainous country. This war resembles the struggle of David against Goliath – only now, David is Iran. On the other hand, Trump will need to somehow manage the optics, without ruling out the possibility that he may ultimately attempt some form of ground invasion, island seizure, or removal of enriched uranium.
A matter of life or death for Iran
American bases in neighboring countries are increasingly becoming an economic burden for the U.S., rather than a strategic advantage, as Alon Ben-Meir has pointed out. The New York Times published photos of the destroyed bases, while the Wall Street Journal illustrated the material losses with diagrams. The U.S. Secretary of Defense sees success in what is happening. Meanwhile, the Gulf monarchies are spending astronomical sums on their defenses, primarily through American companies, only to have Iran –with missiles and drones– obliterate any sense of security they thought they had. Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of Persian Empire history would not be surprised by these developments. After all, the eight-year war with Iran, launched by Saddam Hussein, who told his troops the conflict would be over in a week, ended in stalemate with thousands dead.
For the U.S. and Israel, as they claim, this is a war for a safer future but for Iran, it is truly a matter of life or death today. Since the Iranian Revolution, it is a fact that Iran has funded and supported terrorist activities, providing training, financial backing, and assistance to various armed groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. These actions led the U.S. to designate Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, responsible for contributing to numerous attacks against Americans.
In the mind of an American, the real question is: What exactly is the goal here, how is success defined, and how do we get out of this dismal situation? The U.S. has a habit of turning such attacks into endless wars. Vietnam, Iraq (the former U.S. ambassador to Qatar, Patrick N. Theros, wrote extensively against that war at the time), and Afghanistan all read like lessons America never learned. Another American asked the question on social media: How do we define victory? Is this chaos meant to spark a Third World War or is that, in fact, the ultimate aim? On the other hand, Iran had to be confronted. To what extent can we say that we have already done so?
The heavy cost of war
Iran uses Shahed drones to strike Israel and U.S. embassies, at a cost of roughly $20,000 each. The U.S., in turn, intercepts them with missiles that cost anywhere from $2 million to $10 million apiece.
The daily cost of this war to American taxpayers approaches one billion dollars. Meanwhile, the U.S. borrows roughly $43 to $50 billion each week just to cover its deficit. This is a situation that is clearly unsustainable. Americans are growing poorer day by day because politicians crave wars and the worst part is that they glorify the violence. Joe Kent’s resignation letter spoke volumes on its own.
Let us remember that the “Abraham Accords” were meant to bring lasting peace, prosperity, and benefit for everyone in the region; yet, after this war-fiasco, it all feels like a lie. I did not intend for this article to come across as anti-war, but that, sadly, seems to be the conclusion. So many innocent lives have been lost in Israel, in Lebanon, in Iran, and in other neighboring countries.
Hundreds of buildings are being flattened, and the environment is suffering from constant pollution and fires, while the region’s animals are either killed or living in terror from the sounds of missiles and endless explosions. The truth is, it is always the poor, their children, and the workers who pay the price of every war, and this one is no exception. This senseless war must end…
(Dimitris Eleas is a political scientist, writer and independent researcher living in New York City. His e-mail is: [email protected].)
