HOW WILL THE WAR WITH IRAN END? - Filenews 13/3
By the Bloomberg editorial team
More than a week after the U.S. and Israel launched airstrikes against Iran, neither side seems willing to stop hostilities. The Islamic Republic will surely pay the greatest price for its intransigence. But that doesn't mean the U.S. can ignore the long-term costs of hostilities without having a realistic plan for ending the war in mind.
Despite claiming that "we have already won in many ways," the president said on Monday that the U.S. "will not back down until the enemy is completely and decisively defeated." It is not clear exactly what this means. The Pentagon has set four tactical goals, of which only some of which seem achievable solely through airstrikes: to ensure that Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon, to destroy its fleet and arsenal with ballistic missiles, and to cut off its support for organizations such as Hezbollah. If the administration has a more detailed exit strategy, congressional Democrats briefed on its plans say they haven't listened to it. Meanwhile, ongoing efforts to dismantle the regime's repressive apparatus are just as likely to cause chaos as a pro-democracy uprising.
There is no doubt that the world would be better off if Iran no longer threatened its neighbours, Israel and the West. And whatever happens, the military coordination, technological superiority and enormous firepower that US forces have already demonstrated should prompt adversaries such as China, Russia and North Korea, who may want to test the American will, to reconsider.
At the same time, even a successful campaign that would end soon would leave the US and its regional allies with dangerous shortages of essential ammunition, especially expensive anti-aircraft missiles, the replacement of which can take years. The wear and tear of aircraft and warships will exacerbate the gaps in readiness. Although the Pentagon has not formally asked Congress for additional funding, the cost of this operation is rising rapidly – by about $1 billion a day, according to one estimate.
Anything other than a clean and quick victory, meanwhile, threatens to further upset energy markets and undermine other elements of American power. The government has already clashed with allies in Europe, has annoyed partners in the Persian Gulf, and caused a completely unnecessary diplomatic upheaval with India. Increased oil prices and the easing of sanctions against Russia will bring more money into Vladimir Putin's coffers, at a time when demand for the Patriots threatens to limit the flow of much-needed interceptor missiles to Ukraine. Enemies are certainly learning from the tactics displayed in the American campaign and will adjust their own military strategies accordingly.
In addition, the longer the war lasts, the greater the risk that other countries will be involved. Iranian attacks could provoke retaliation from the Gulf countries. A move by Kurdish rebels to revolt against the regime could spread chaos, potentially spreading to Iraq, Turkey and Syria. As distant as this region may seem, the U.S. would not remain unscathed: a destabilized region would be a constant strategic distraction, while the administration claims, like its predecessors, that it wants to refocus on China and other priorities.
In view of these risks, the White House must define clear and achievable war objectives. The collapse of the regime is unlikely without the presence of troops on the ground. What is needed is a negotiated solution – a solution that will leave Iran intact and stable, but that will contain it militarily.
Even after the appointment of hardline Mojtaba Khamenei as supreme leader, the government will have to work through informal channels to investigate whether there are figures within the Iranian system who are willing to agree to acceptable security arrangements and work with civil society to implement internal reforms. Diplomats should seek support for such a strategy from allies in the Gulf and elsewhere. It is vital that White House officials begin to involve Congress in their planning and offer convincing goals to citizens.
This war raises the same question as every previous war: "Tell me how this ends." The government must find a better answer, and soon.
