The ongoing military conflict between Iran on one hand and the United States and Israel on the other has been unfolding in a manner that is strongly validating the position I took in my two-part article of July 6 and 20 last year during the 12-day conflict between the Jewish and the Persian state which climaxed with the United States’ strikes on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities using the famed B-2 Spirit bomber that dropped bunker-bursting ammunition. In part 2 of that essay, I argued that Iran’s diplomatic strategy is ill-advised in the face of the political, military, and economic realities surrounding the country. I had argued that the best approach for Iran is to cease its confrontational diplomacy in matters related to the Israel-Palestine dispute – an aggressive diplomacy that has pitted it against the powerful Jewish-western bloc, who Iran is no match military, economically, and politically.
Iran’s diplomacy in the Middle East is motivated not by concrete economic or security interest, but by an Islamist ideology it adopted since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that swept out the government of the Sha, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Since then, Iran has taken it upon itself to fight the cause of the Palestinian people and Islam, especially the Shia Islam. However, whatever that is happening in Palestine does not directly affect Iran economically or security wise. The creation and the continued existence of the modern state of Israel do not harm any such concrete interest of Iran. Thus, its confrontational diplomacy – which has seen it commit billions of dollars in arming militant groups in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen – is purely an exercise in pursuit of mere ideological goals – more of an adventure in self-validation and ego preservation than in pursuit of any concrete objectives that will benefit the citizens of the nation. Contrast this with what is motivating the US and Israel in their Middle East diplomacy: the former is primarily after its economic interest while the latter is after its security.
As I noted in my article of last year, this is not about who is wrong or right between Iran and Israel, but about sensible diplomacy that saves a nation from unnecessarily destroying itself and subjecting its citizenry to avoidable miseries. After all, in international politics, the rule has always been “might is right” – a stronger nation does a lot of things and gets away with it; appeals to morality and law are often pretentious and hypocritical. It has been like this from the ancient times – and quite surprisingly – not so much has changed today even in the face of the high level of institutional organisation the international space has attained.
So, anyone encouraging Iran to continue on its current confrontational path is simply telling it to continue destroying itself. In ancient times, mighty empires, including Iran itself (then Persia), arose, fought and subjugated weaker nations. These weaker nations were wise enough to know when to cease confrontation and avoid annihilation. (The sheer savagery of the wars of those times – as compared to modern wars – made annihilation very probable for a stubborn nation.)
For years, the modern Iran has shown greater commitment to ideological pride than it shows to the good of its citizens. Its nuclear programme has earned it crippling multiple sanctions, and notwithstanding the economic pains these entail for its citizens, it still found it wise spending billions of dollars arming and training belligerent groups like Hamas and Hezbollah – money that would have gone a long way in bettering the lives of its populace bitten badly by the sanctions.
Very importantly, militarily, Iran has no justification continuing with its confrontational poise. It is no match to its enemy. The ongoing war has shown how virtually defenceless Iran is in terms of aerial warfare – a key variable in battle dominance since the 20th century. While the US and Israel’s planes are having a field day over the Iranian sky, Iran is only relying on ballistic missiles and can fly no plane into the neighbouring territory of Israel – reaching the US is completely off the book. Iran’s air force is outdated; its mainstay is old US planes acquired during the friendly days of the Shas, but western sanctions have blocked access to spare parts and other maintenance resources, rendering these war machines virtually useless. On the contrary, Iran is being confronted by the Middle East’s most sophisticated air force in Israel and the world’s most sophisticated in the US.
In my last year’s article, after doing a comparison of Iran’s and Israel’s military strength, I made the following strong assertions: “… Iran’s strategy is self-defeating. In the world of diplomacy, there are other means of pursuing one’s interest as against seeking confrontations with a stronger rival. In the study of international relations, three parameters have become popular for determining the stronger between two nations. These parameters can be framed as questions thus: Which of the two nations is more capable of influencing the policies and preferences of the other? Which of them is more able to wage war or withstand aggression from the other? And which of the nations is more capable of realising its strategic objectives against the other? Clearly, the answer, in the three cases, will be Israel-US alliance.
“Against this backdrop, insisting on its confrontational approach would amount to bad diplomacy on the part of Iran. It should look at countries like Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and the UAE, and copy their more creative approach that has not only served the cause of peace, but has benefitted the countries themselves. For instance, Egypt and Jordan, which were once sworn enemies of Israel, accepted peace deals with the Jewish state as brokered by the US, and this entitled them to some incentives. Egypt, for example, struck its own agreement by way of the historic Camp David Accords brokered by President Jimmy Carter, and this gave them $1bn worth of defence aid yearly from the US. President Trump is offering Iran $30bn aid for development of a peaceful nuclear programme if it would give up its suspected atomic weapons project. It would also have economic sanctions lifted on it.
“One may argue that the above suggestion amounts to asking Iran and the Palestinian people to submit to the Israeli-American hegemony; in fact, to accept defeat. Far from that, it is merely a call for embrace of pragmatism. Iran’s strategy of arming militant groups against Israel can never succeed in achieving balance of power between Israel and Palestine which would have made it possible for the two parties to negotiate on equal terms. Israel will always have some advantage on such negotiation table. This is a sad reality that must be accepted by anyone desiring of seeing a negotiated solution to the problem. If Iran accepts this, it will see reasons to change its strategy.”
The happenings in the ongoing war still validate the above assertions. The casualty levels, both in lives and infrastructure, weigh much heavier on the side of Iran. Its reliance on surface-to-air ballistic missiles implies less precision in hitting targets than the US and Israel who rely on jet fighters that hit targets from closer range and with an advantage of a clear line of sight. Besides, Israel’s trio of air defence systems – Iron Dome, Arrows, and David’s Sling – are reputed as some of the best in the world, so Iran’s missiles have a lot of obstacles to overcome. Little wonder casualty rates have been rising in Iran including among its top political and military figures. Its losses are much higher than what Israel has suffered. So, clearly, in terms of cost in lives and property, Iran is losing the war and will never win. In terms of human suffering, it is losing and will never win.
I have read some Nigerians on social media hailing Iran for so far resisting Israel and the US. At what cost? Ironically, those persons are in the comfort of their homes urging Iran to continue to sacrifice the lives and comfort of their citizens just for ideological pride. Would they have hailed the Nigerian government if it foolishly continues to show defiance and talk tough while a stronger nation’s bombs continue to ravage lives and render people homeless in parts of the country? It is easy to applaud a fight when one is not part of it.
Pragmatic diplomacy is a time-tested strategy that nations have applied from ancient times to modern times. Iran chose ideology over pragmatism and the result has been tragic. Socioeconomic life is much better in its neighbouring countries like Kuwait, UAE, Jordan and Qatar who at some point chose a different diplomatic path in their relations with Israel and the US. Ironically, many Iranians have been migrating to those climes simply because, for 47 years now, the Islamist government of their own country has obstinately held on to an ideology that has pitted the nation against much stronger foes, fetching her sanctions, deaths and pillages.
As it stands now, it is difficult to predict how this conflict will end. Several military experts had earlier warned that it would be nearly impossible to overthrow a regime through aerial bombing alone without having boots on the ground. Will the US swallow its pride and seek the easy way out of the standoff by unilaterally declaring victory on the basis that it has done considerable damage to Iran’s military infrastructure? Or will it venture into sending in ground troops to achieve a regime change – of course fully aware of all the attendant risks as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or will it finally reach a deal with Iran who will have to make hard choices regarding its nuclear programme and its policy of not recognizing Israel’s right to exist? This is where Iran has to choose between pragmatism and ideology.
Henry Chigozie Duru teaches journalism and mass communication at Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Nigeria.
This is a very good analysis from a humanistic point of view.