As with the arguments against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the US’ and Israel’s new war, the many ways in which Iran projects force curtails the space that ordinarily ought to be available for other countries to make decisions in their own interests… In both Russia’s and the US-Israel’s recent military adventures, might is not only right, but it also seems to trump thinking things through.
In their respective ways, the wars in Europe (the consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) and the Middle East (the outcome of the US and Israel’s invasion of Iran) tell a valuable story. Yet, the underlying circumstances could not be more different. The war against Iran is a lot clearer in this respect. Three concerns are dominant. Iran’s use of proxy militias (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the occupied territories in Israel, and the Houthis in Yemen) for strategic military leverage in the region. Its processing of uranium to near weapons grade quality. And its domestic capacity to produce ballistic missiles and attack drones.
|
|
Israel may have of recent degraded the potency of Iran’s foreign forces, but as Hamas’ 7 October, 2023 attack on Israel showed, they are capable of wreaking havoc. As have the Houthis in their blockade of commercial shipping traffic through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and Hezbollah’s renewed fighting with Israel in the south of Lebanon. The threat to countries in the region from Iran’s missiles and drones long since crossed the hypothetical threshold. Indeed, not only has the Third Gulf war underscored Iran’s stand-off kill capacity and underlined its reach, but there is also clear evidence that military intelligence services in the West and Israel underestimated the Islamic Republic’s capacity in this regard.
Ought then the world to be concerned about Iran’s possession of fissile material and its possible breakout horizon? Yes. And in agreeing to the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA – the Iran nuclear deal), Iran paid back-handed compliments to this concern. But do these fears justify the US and Israel’s war against Iran? Especially when it was not as if Iran was in breach of any of the terms of the JCPOA, until the US unilaterally abrogated the agreement.
|
|
|
|---|
In both wars, the three most militarily powerful countries have sought to resolve matters on their own terms. The problem is that these terms do not favour a world at peace with itself, and free to pursue the developments in science and technology that will be critical to humanity’s continued non-rivalrous occupation of the earth.
The woollier circumstances of Russia’s war against Ukraine help provide some answers to this question. The lack of coherence in the Kremlin’s justification for the war (it still is a “special military operation” there) do not help matters. The weightiest of Ukraine’s provocations can be distilled into four buckets. Its desire to join NATO (the Western military alliance) would bring that organisation close to Russia’s borders, threatening its national security. The alleged undue influence of alleged extremist nationalist elements in Kyiv made Russia’s “denazification” and “demilitarisation” of Ukraine both imperative and urgent. Russia also apparently acted to protect two breakaway Ukrainian republics – the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. Then there was the not so small matter of defending Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donbas region, where conflict had been ongoing since 2014.
It is enough to point out how close Alaska (US) is to the Kamchatka Krai Region (Russia) to underscore the hollowness of the perceived threat from NATO’s eastward expansion. But this is for another conversation. What counts for this piece is that at the heart of both the war in Ukraine and the one in Iran are disagreements between five states’ understanding of developments in their regions (in the US’ case, its self-appointed sphere of influence).
In both wars, the three most militarily powerful countries have sought to resolve matters on their own terms. The problem is that these terms do not favour a world at peace with itself, and free to pursue the developments in science and technology that will be critical to humanity’s continued non-rivalrous occupation of the earth. The same way democracies must provide additional protections for minority groups and rights that would otherwise be steamrollered in a majoritarian state, the world order must protect small states against the deleterious effects of a carve-up into “spheres of influence” by the world’s leading economies.
Unsurprisingly, the respective comeuppances of these wars have been far from their intentions and have left the world worse off. The truth is that there are no substitutes for resolving matters like these through multilateral institutions like the United Nations.
In Iran’s case, this argument is not easily made. Yet, once we agree that the Islamic Republic’s possession of nuclear bombs and the means to deliver them would have made the US-Israel invasion unlikely, we make the defensive case for an arsenal of arms and munitions. The offensive case, sadly, is no longer obviated by a more democratic global architecture. In addition, Iran’s export – especially through military means – of its revolution is not a non-rivalrous use of our collective space.
As with the arguments against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the US’ and Israel’s new war, the many ways in which Iran projects force curtails the space that ordinarily ought to be available for other countries to make decisions in their own interests. The idea that “might is right” has a great history behind it, from its first appearance in the title of Arthur Desmond’s 1896 book, through Machiavelli’s writings, to the ideas of social Darwinist thought. But that history was the nutritive medium for all the wars that our humanity has fought till date. Our new wars take this argument into even stranger territory. In both Russia’s and the US-Israel’s recent military adventures, might is not only right, but it also seems to trump thinking things through.
Unsurprisingly, the respective comeuppances of these wars have been far from their intentions and have left the world worse off. The truth is that there are no substitutes for resolving matters like these through multilateral institutions like the United Nations.
Uddin Ifeanyi, a journalist manqué and retired civil servant, can be reached @IfeanyiUddin.
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
