The Iran War-Where do we go from here?

Arnd Jurgensen

If we live long enough to do so, we may well look back on the events of this month as the beginning of World War 3. The conflict is already spreading beyond Iran, the US and Israel, in ways that are not simply the result of Iran’s retaliation against Gulf States that host US military facilities. The sinking of an Iranian ship in international waters 2000 miles from Iran, the attack on a US base in the territory of NATO member Turkey, are merely the earliest signs of the global reach of this conflict. The fact that the foreign minister of Oman was in Washington to deliver the message that Iran had agreed to the core demands of the Trump administration regarding its nuclear program makes further evident that this attack was no more about Iran’s nuclear program than the attack on Venezuela was about fentanyl or democracy promotion. What connects these disparate military moves by the US is a grand strategy that has had bipartisan support in the U.S. for decades. This of course includes the long-lived animosity of U.S. elites in both parties toward the countries that “humiliated” the U.S. by establishing regimes not beholden to the hegemon (Cuba, Iran and Venezuela and why not Nicaragua for good measure) but goes well beyond their punishment.

Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the declared policy of the U.S. has been to maintain its position of “full spectrum dominance” with respect to the international system. While the U.S. does appear to still be dominant in military terms, it unclear whether that is still the case with respect to economic power or for that matter aspects of “soft power” (cultural appeal, moral authority…) In the realm of economics China appears to have bypassed the US as a manufacturing power as well as a source of investment around the world and with that its influence has increased.

Mr. Trump came to office with one overwhelming goal, to reassert U.S. primacy by challenging the rise of China. He and his advisors somehow deluded themselves into thinking that could be accomplished by imposing tariffs on Chinese exports, only to quickly find that the U.S. was more vulnerable in a trade war than China. What we are now seeing may be the result of those failed policies. What Venezuela and Iran had in common is obvious: oil and sanctions. As a result of US sanctions and China’s willingness to ignore them, Iran sold 80% of its oil to China, and Venezuela became similarly dependent on China as a market for its oil. By kidnapping the president of Venezuela and attacking Iran, not only has the U.S. successfully cut China off from that supply but in doing so it has also pushed the global price for oil through the roof. As the largest producer of oil and a net exporter, the US will reap the windfall while, as the largest importer of oil, China will pay the price.

We must condemn in the strongest terms the resort to military force by the United States and Israel against the state of Iran, as we condemn any unjustified resort to force between

states. The US/Israeli attack is a fundamental violation of the most basic norms of international law and diplomacy. Sadly, such a condemnation has not been forthcoming from most of the European States or, for that matter the government of Canada. We must also be aware of the larger context within which this is happening. That includes the history of conflict between the U.S. and Iran that began in 1953 (when the U.S. and U.K. overthrew the popular elected government in Tehran and imposed the brutal puppet regime of Shah Reza Palavi on the country), just as much as the 1979 revolution and its aftermath.

Under the rules established at the end of the Second World War by the U.S. and its allies, the resort to military force is permissible only under two conditions: 1. That it is authorized by the Security Council of the U.N.; or: 2. In response to an imminent threat posed by the state in question. Neither of these applied in the current case, which makes this attack against Iran a war of aggression, the highest crime under international law. Worse still, the attack coincided (for the second time) with ongoing negotiations in which the representatives of Iran had agreed to virtually all the demands put forward by the US government with respect to Iran’s nuclear technologies. Indeed, the opening attack targeted a meeting in which the Iranian leadership was gathered to consider the agreement that had been negotiated in Oman.

The Trump administration made no effort to inform, let alone get authorization for the attack from either the U.N. Security Council or the U.S. Congress, both of which are required under International and U.S. law. Neither the justification for the attack or the objectives the U.S. wants to achieve have been clearly defined. Instead, the constantly changing explanations range from defending against an imminent attack (without providing evidence that such an attack was imminent), preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capacity, destroying their capacity to produce and launch missiles, to ending their support for regional proxies. No coherent exit strategy appears to exist, nor, in the absence of ground troops a coherent plan for further escalation. Contrary to assertions by Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth that Iran is “toast”, Iran has yet to make use of its most sophisticated weapons. Instead, it appears to be relying on drones and less sophisticated missiles to exhaust the supply of interceptors in the arsenal of the US and Israel. Should the counterattacks against Israel become more destructive, a nuclear response from Israel can clearly not be ruled out. It should be taken for granted that now that the leader who stood in the way of developing nuclear weapons by issuing a fatwa in 2003, has been assassinated, Iran will waste no time in turning its existing stock of enriched uranium into nuclear weapons. That is an outcome unacceptable to both Israel and the U.S., begging the question of where they will go from here.

Having failed to achieve regime collapse, which was clearly the goal of both the U.S. and Israel, the world must now reap the predictable consequences. This is not limited to retaliatory strikes on Israel and the Gulf states but includes the shutting down of the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil and gas and an even larger share of the supply of fertilizers are shipped. The resulting increase in the price of these commodities will be felt in every corner of the globe, even if the resulting pain is not spread evenly.

The country that is likely to be most severely impacted by this war (aside from Iran) is China. This impact is not limited to the problem of rising oil prices, as crucial as they will be. Iran was an important buyer of Chinese manufactured goods and an important transit route to access markets in the Middle East and Africa. China has invested heavily in infrastructure projects and harbour facilities, not only in Iran but in several of the Gulf States as part of the Belt and Road initiative. Will it be content to stand on the sidelines while this conflict plays out and its investments are destroyed? It appears already to have given Iran access to its satellite navigation system for targeting purposes, increasing the accuracy of Iranian attacks. It also has existing contracts to supply Iran with hypersonic glide missiles against which neither Israel nor the U.S. has effective defenses.

Canada has stealthily and without public discussion, redefined it relationship with several Gulf States from “strategic partnerships” to “allies”, creating out of thin air an obligation to come to their “defense” where no such obligation previously existed. The UK, Germany and France have made similar moves, drawing them into the conflict in “defense” of their allies, which of course in this case include the aggressor states. To those among us that have studied the histories of previous world wars, where this may go should be frighteningly predictable.

I have no affection for the theocratic regime that has ruled Iran since 1979 but our feelings in this regard are irrelevant. The demand for an immediate ceasing of hostilities, payment of reparations for the damages resulting from an illegal attack and for credible security guarantees, are entirely reasonable. These are precisely the demands Europe, Canada and the U.S. have made regarding the illegal invasion of Ukrainian territory by Russia. The international community stands before a stark choice: the international rule of law as embodied in the U.N. charter, or barbarism. The former is only possible and legitimate in so far as it is applied consistently, including with respect to the countries of Europe, Canada, the U.S. and Israel.

Arnd Jurgensen is Chair of the Nuclear Weapons Working Group and international relations specialist at University of Toronto.