Political, economic pressures mount as US-Israel war with Iran continues - opinion

The success or failure of the US-Israeli military operation in Iran hangs in the balance. It is very largely dependent upon how “success” is finally adjudged.

Since February 28, the Iranian regime has sustained a massive armed offensive, and as a result, its resources and infrastructure have been substantially depleted. US President Donald Trump has on several occasions detailed the vast losses Iran has incurred and hinted that he is on the verge of declaring victory. At other times, he has indicated that he has considerably more in reserve by way of military power, including the possible use of American troops, to be used in loosening Iran's grip on international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and ensuring the unconditional surrender of the regime.

Trump has been criticized for the apparent inconsistency of his various statements, which, to some, seem ill-considered. They are, however, just as likely to be a deliberate strategy aimed at keeping the enemy, and perhaps the world at large, guessing as to his calculated and detailed plans for the endgame.

Meanwhile, Iran, far from seeking as early an end to the war as possible – on the face of it the obvious course to follow – is continuing to attack states that host Western military bases and to disrupt international shipping and thus the global oil market. Iran is fighting a 'war of attrition'On March 15, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran had “never asked for a ceasefire.” In fact, the regime seems to be conducting what Eric Mandel, writing in The Jerusalem Post on March 16, calls “a war of attrition.”

The loss of its current leadership through targeted assassination is unlikely to affect this survival strategy.

The March issue of Foreign Affairs carried an article by Robert Pape, a professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, entitled “Why escalation favors Iran.”

In it, Pape explained why Iran, despite its weaker conventional military power, paradoxically benefits from broadening and extending the current conflict. The core of his argument is that Iran is pursuing a strategy he called “horizontal escalation” – namely, expanding the scope, geography, and duration of the conflict to shift it from a direct military contest toward political endurance and strategic costs.

Pape contended that Iran knows it cannot defeat a US-Israel alliance in a direct military confrontation. Instead, it is changing the nature of the conflict. By using regional proxies, attacking economic targets, and disrupting international commerce, Iran can vastly increase the political and economic costs borne by its stronger adversaries and their allies.

The strategy draws on historic precedents. One example is the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces outmaneuvered the US by escalating the war “horizontally” into the towns and cities in the south. The US won every battle over 11 bloody years, but lost the war.

Another example is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and America's in 2001. Both operations ended as classic “wars of attrition,” where the insurgent side wore down the occupier over time until domestic political support and strategic patience eroded.

The Soviets entered Afghanistan expecting a short stabilization mission. However, they were drawn into a decade-long counter-insurgency that Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev later called a “bleeding wound,” with mounting casualties, economic strain, and political embarrassment. The mujahideen, backed by Pakistan, the US, and others, used sanctuary, terrain, and time to ensure the conflict was prolonged and costly, rather than decisive.

The later US campaign similarly morphed into an open-ended effort against an adaptive insurgency – in this case, the Taliban and its allies – that aimed to outlast Western domestic will and unity, rather than to defeat US forces tactically in set-piece battles.

Finally, both the Soviets and the US acknowledged defeat and withdrew their forces.

According to Pape, Iran's current actions – rapid retaliatory strikes, disruption of regional infrastructure, and resilience even after leadership losses – are meant to demonstrate to its opponents and to the world in general that the regime can sustain a long conflict.

This strategy transforms the confrontation into a test of political will rather than battlefield superiority, a test the Iranian regime may believe it can win. The longer the fight drags on, the more it works in Iran's favor. It disrupts energy markets, strains host-country tolerance for US bases, and erodes domestic and allied political support for an open-ended campaign.

Unless Washington adjusts its strategy to account for these dynamics, Pape warned, the US and Israel may have “bitten off more than they can chew” and risk losing control of the war they initiated.

What is the slowly accumulating danger for the US-Israel alliance? By broadening and prolonging the conflict, Iran could impose mounting costs and heavy political pressure on the alliance, and gradually wrest control of the war's trajectory from its stronger opponents. In short, continued escalation risks putting the US and Israel into a strategic trap.

For instance, the longer the conflict continues, the harder it becomes for rulers in the Gulf – and particularly Abraham Accords partners – to sustain their relationship with Israel without sacrificing legitimacy at home. A protracted war would also reshape American politics. Sizable elements of Trump's political coalition have been wary of Middle Eastern entanglements and have accused the administration of simply following Israel's lead.

The longer US military operations continue, the greater the danger of fractures widening within Trump's political supportive base – as exemplified by the resignation on May 17 of Joe Kent, director of the US National Counterterrorism Center.

Transatlantic strains could also follow. The US could be in difficulties if, faced with the dangers of a prolonged, economically disastrous war, European states decided to limit their support or to constrain the use of their territory.

US strategists would also obviously be factoring into their calculations the risk of the conflict escalating beyond the Middle East. Out of this complex military, political, and economic maelstrom, there is a real danger that the US-Israel alliance could end by plucking defeat from the jaws of victory. It would be a hollow victory indeed if, in the final analysis, the revolutionary regime remained in power in Iran.

It has to be swept away.

The writer, a former senior civil servant, is the Middle East correspondent for Eurasia Review. Follow him at: www.a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com