The US’s tryst with the Persian Gulf

That is exactly the picture which the US probably wants to project as part of its escalating psychological warfare and virtual gunboat diplomacy.
President Donald Trump
President Donald Trump

Away from the humdrum of India’s election scenario which has beset national focus for seven weeks, it is good to review events and trends which may pose challenges to the new government earlier than we can imagine. It’s the Persian Gulf which is drawing the world’s attention and for good reason. A shooting war in the region between the US and Iran won’t remain restricted to just those countries.

It will expand faster than one can imagine and endanger international commercial shipping, movement of energy resources and even air travel causing quite a bit of turbulence in the international system, resulting in rise in energy prices. It will send the world economy and especially the economies of high energy-dependent nations into a difficult-to-control spiral.

That is exactly the picture which the US probably wants to project as part of its escalating psychological warfare and virtual gunboat diplomacy. A parallel to the build-up to the strategic disaster of Gulf War II in 2003 appears to be again on the boil, commencing with the US’s decision to declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—Iran’s armed force for foreign operations—a terror entity. It then led to the strengthening of the sanctions against Iran which include withdrawal of concessions granted to eight nations, including India, to continue the energy trade with Iran for six months.

That forced Iran to place on notice the five other nations involved in the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, to re-cement the deal or face gradual withdrawal of Iran from the agreement. It’s a classic case of brinkmanship when a powerful nation adopts coercive strategy and speaks differently at various levels of leadership. While President Donald Trump denies any intent of going to war, his National Security Adviser, John Bolton continues to be the hawk while making pronouncements.

These include the decision to move the USS Abraham Lincoln, one of the most advanced ships of the US Navy, along with its carrier strike group, and a task force of four nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to the Middle East, purportedly to respond if there was any attack on US interests in the Middle East. It was followed up by sending a Patriot missile battery and an amphibious ship capable of transporting Marines. 

Bolton apparently played a similar role in Gulf War II as an Under Secretary of State and reportedly did not regret the obvious mistakes which became evident. With Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also supporting the coercion underway and claiming that it was his advice to Trump which led to the US reneging on the Iran Nuclear Deal, there are real fears of ‘false flag’ events and actions which could create an uncontrollable situation. 

I do think war is not a possibility and my belief is not because of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s proactive diplomacy. What Iran and the US are involved in is a modern gunboat diplomacy played out through cyber, proxy, fake information and advanced levels of military brinkmanship. If another missile lands on the US Embassy compound or building in Baghdad, as it did a few days ago, no one is going to be asking where it came from and no one is going to investigate. However, the US for all the current idiosyncrasies, does have a pragmatic military leadership and its voice on war waging and winning capability will have to be heard. 

In 2003, in the lead up to Gulf War II the perception in the military was that an unfinished task of 1990 had to be completed. The involvement in Afghanistan then was just 18 months old. The sheer impossibility of victory in such a hybrid war overseas had not sunk in, with revenge for 9/11 still hanging in the Damocles mode.

Sixteen years down the line, the US military has studied hybrid asymmetric war more widely. Its commanders who will be tasked to deliver also know the meaning and sensitivity of culture which it has taken pains to study; the Shia propensity to view martyrdom and self-sacrifice, and withstand depravation is phenomenal. A war by the US at the instigation of others without clear-cut outcomes and identified interests is unlikely to deliver dividend. It is not a war which the US people will back and it does not meet Trump’s core philosophy of ‘America First’. 

Over a hundred thousand US troops could interminably be embroiled in a war the US is unprepared for. The economy of the US is improving, unemployment is low and the mainland is secure; that is enough to assure Trump a second term if he can play that correctly. He need not involve the US in what is assuredly an unwinnable war which could actually see the IRGC more powerful at the end of the endeavour. It’s even unsafe to trigger a war in the Middle East when the ISIS still remains in networked state and could revitalise. 

For India’s new government there is much at stake; from steep oil prices to threats against the diaspora in the Gulf; from Chah Bahar to potential denial of access to Afghanistan. India’s stance has to be one of self-preservation, best interests and even-handedness. However, either way this is a situation from which emerging with any level of advantage is almost impossible.

atahasnain@gmail.com

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com