|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Welcome to The Geopolity’s What We’re Watching (3W), our daily look at the interconnected worlds of Geopolitics, Economics and Energy. Curated from the world’s leading sources of information, our analysis and commentary is designed to help you make sense of the events driving the major developments in the world
In our previous 3W update, we concluded that war remains the most likely shorter-term outcome for the Middle East. Iran continues to attack vessels that attempt to sail through the Strait of Hormuz, in order to make the current status quo painful economically for the US, and thereby make it impossible for the EU to “just walk away”. But although peace talks are taking place, the US is amassing of military hardware in the Middle East, as it prefers another round of war over compromises to its position in negotiations with Iran. Iran is not afraid of this outcome due to its military successes during the 40-day “Ramadan War”, and therefore the dynamic remains towards war.
Nothing has fundamentally changed since we wrote that analysis. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said Tuesday that three oil tankers were on fire in the Strait of Hormuz as a result of their attempts to sail through the Strait without Iranian approval, writes Arab News. On Wednesday it said a further two oil tankers, carrying a total of 4 million barrels of crude oil, were set on fire, writes Asharq Al Awsat.
As to the diplomacy, US vice president JD Vance is “considering” face-to-face talks with Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei, writes The Wall Street Journal. Vance in October sent a letter to Rezai, which initiated the current diplomacy through mediators. Rezaei for his part dismissed any negotiations as “imaginary talks” and insisted that Iran “won’t remove even a single particle of enriched nuclear material from the country.”
Iran’s confidence also remains at record highs. The 40-day “Ramadan War” proved Iran’s military capabilities, while the US midterm elections proved Iran’s strategic acumen, says Trita Parsi in an interview for the Judging Freedom podcast. Iran has kept on attacking traffic in the Strait of Hormuz because it knew this would create economic pain, in the US and globally, which would undermine Trump’s standing in the US and US standing internationally. As we at 3W noted in our previous update, the US midterm election outcomes confirmed this strategy.
3W also mentioned in our previous update that Iran has been giving signals that it will not limit its retaliations to the Middle East in case it is attacked again. Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei has now come out and openly said that any US military base involved in a new war against Iran, from West Asia to Europe, would be a legitimate target for Iranian strikes, writes The National. “If the US launches another war against Iran, every military base involved in the aggression – from West Asia to Europe – will be a legitimate target for Iran’s lethal strikes,” Rezaei said on X.
Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei has now come out and openly said that any US military base involved in a new war against Iran, from West Asia to Europe, would be a legitimate target for Iranian strikes
For the moment, it seems the US continues to hope that its economic blockade of Iran will eventually make Tehran cave at the negotiating table. In our previous 3W update, we noted the establishment of a new “Task Force” to develop an effective land blockade of Iran. The new team will “coordinate with other US government agencies on preventing the movement of advanced weapons systems, dual-use technologies, sanctioned materials, and illegal revenue streams across Iran’s land borders and the Caspian Sea”, states the official press release by US CENTCOM. The New York Times writes, however, that the US has been trying to achieve this for weeks already, and largely failed. The neighboring states, primarily Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan, are increasingly wary and disgruntled by US policies they say could hurt them as much as Tehran, NYT states. In the 3W view, the US attempt is doomed to fail. One reason is that countries such as Iraq and Pakistan cannot afford to close the border. Not only would this be devastating for their own economies, it would also be likely to trigger massive popular unrest, as large sections of the Iraqi and Pakistani populace actually support Iran in this conflict. Another reason is that a land blockade requires active support from Turkey and Russia, whose geopolitical interests are not aligned with the US on this subject. Turkey knows it will be next, after Iran is defeated by the US – Israel Alliance, because Israel already said so. Russia knows it needs allies to collaborate with, as it attempts to resist US efforts to maintain hegemony, and for this reason it cannot allow Iran to be defeated.
Once this reality sinks in, the “attack ‘m again!” camp in US elite politics, that is, the Zionist Lobby, will certainly see their voice strengthened. Then, regarding Iran the US will go down the road that Saudi Arabia has taken with regard to Yemen – push for ever more fighting, thinking this eventually defeat the enemy and ion that way resolve the issue.
Syria is weighing whether to send thousands of troops to Saudi Arabia and Yemen to support the kingdom in its war with AnsarAllah, writes The New York Times. Military reconnaissance teams have already visited Saudi Arabia and Yemen in recent weeks to scout positions and coordinate with their counterparts in both countries. Apparently, no official decision has been taken by Syria yet, but if it decides to provide Saudi Arabia with the support that has been requested, it is expected to so under the banner of the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement (JDA) the mutual-defense pact signed by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan in August. 3W notes this comes off the back of Saudi Arabia asking Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt to deploy their militaries in support of Riyadh. In our view, what Saudi Arabia does not seem capable of grasping is that it is simply too vulnerable in the age of drone and missile warfare. AnsarAllah again reminded the ruling elites of Saudi Arabia of this reality earlier this week, when it attacked the financial district in Riyadh, damaging an office tower belonging to the state oil company, Aramco, writes The New York Times. Such attacks are adding to pressure on Saudi Arabia’s economic transformation and efforts to attract global business and investment, writes Bloomberg; and is creating a “liquidity queeze” driving a rapid slowdown in the Saudi economy, Bloomberg also writes. So, Saudi Arabia simply cannot win a “quick and easy victory” in Yemen, we at 3W note. It could potentially win a war in Yemen, but only if it is willing to throw everything it has into the fighting, i.e. a Total War that completely absorbs the Saudi economy while tens of thousands of Saudis are killed on the front lines. Short of that, Saudi’s efforts to control Yemen will fail, with devastating impact on life and wellbeing both sides of the border, a “slow burning disaster”. This is the direction Saudi is heading. And this is where the US will be heading if it follows the calls for renewed from the Zionist lobby.
Instead of trying win the war with Iran, the US could also opt to rebalance the Middle East, he says. In this case, the US would use initiatives such as the Mecca JDA to strengthen a bloc in opposition to Iran, by supporting it and strengthening it, and then hand the conflict with Iran over to it
Speaking to Glenn Diesen at his substack, Robert Pape, professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, specializing in international security affairs, and a White House Advisor, sets out an alternative policy. Instead of trying win the war with Iran, the US could also opt to rebalance the Middle East, he says. In this case, the US would use initiatives such as the Mecca JDA to strengthen a bloc in opposition to Iran, by supporting it and strengthening it, and then hand the conflict with Iran over to it. This, we at 3W note, is exactly what we warned about when in August we analysed the Mecca JDA shortly after it was announced. We said that if the JDA is done with a sincere intention by Saud, Turkey and Pakistan to take Middle Eastern matters into their own hands, that is, push out the US, then the JDA can be used to design a new Middle Eastern security arrangement with Iran, and thereby create the opportunity for a more stable and more prosperous “Greater Middle East”. If, however, the JDA is in service to the US, that is, to enable the US to withdraw while leaving the current security arrangement that excludes Iran in place, then it will only lead to a worse outcome for the Greater Middle East, because then Saud, Turkey and Pakistan are allowing themselves to be used by the US to fight Iran on its behalf. Such a Muslim-brother-on-Muslim-brother battle would quickly consume the entire Middle East, we at 3W forewarned at that time.
And we do so again here. The fact that Pape discusses the JDA in this manner indicates it has been discussed at elite US policy levels in this manner – and probably explains why people like Trump have welcomed the initiative.
Don’t be fooled by the current calm. The Middle East will continue to burn, as long as its leaders continue to serve US – Israeli interests, or follow US – Israeli advice, instead of taking their own interests into their own hands.