By Rehman Yar, student of BS public policy at Government College University, Lahore.
The so-called founder and self-nominated permanent chairman of the ‘Board of Peace,’ who once claimed that his organization would resolve the ongoing conflicts around the world and eventually replace the United Nations as the symbol of global peacekeeping, has buried the very purpose and objectives of the organization in its early stages. The same leader, who was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, has now become associated with the conflicts rather than their resolution.
Apparently, the world has acknowledged that Trump’s presidency differs from that of the post-WWII American presidents of the US, as he has implemented his slogan: ‘America First’. However, an important question remains: Has the world conceded that he is pursuing the same ‘imperialist’ policies and war-crimes mechanisms that US presidents, such as Truman, Kennedy, B. Johnson, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, had adopted in the past? Pulling both of these strategies simultaneously delivers a clear indication that anything could happen tomorrow, and the allies, who are closely dependent on the US, ought to look for a ‘PLAN B.’.
Currently, there is an ongoing war between the US, Israel, and Iran, which was initiated by the US and has been escalated into a regional war. The Middle East is in a ‘World War’ situation. Trump and Netanyahu are repeating patterns of US interventions, which history has not forgotten yet, such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and hereafter Iran. As Mark Twain has stated, “History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” It has been more than a week since the war began, and instead of mitigation, the situation is further intensifying and getting out of control.
In retaliation for the US and Israeli attack, Iran has turned their weapons towards the Gulf countries, where the US military bases are present. This has erupted in fire in the Middle East, and it has become a war zone. Ostensibly, it is an asymmetric war, but still strong resistance could be observed by the Iranian side, which the opposite parties weren’t expecting. Plus, the window of opportunity that Trump doesn’t want to miss has turned against his perceptions. Taking advantage from the internal polarization, he was expecting an internal revolution against the Khamenei regime, which appears to have failed. No hopes of de-escalation are yet identified, and the situation is gradually becoming unpredictable. The peacekeeping president has claimed that the war could drag on weeks longer. But would it be limited to weeks, when the purpose is still opaque?
The US and Israel present a variety of purposes. The most sensitive issue is the perception of Iran becoming a nuclear state. The US and Israel have fears that if Iran becomes a nuclear power, it would be a severe blow to their power, especially in the region. If the main concern of the conflict was the nuclear capability of Iran, then why did the US invade Iran even when Iran offered proposals such as temporarily suspending major nuclear activities, reducing uranium enrichment levels, and allowing monitoring by international inspectors? Doesn’t it indicate that Trump was not genuinely pursuing a deal, but it was a cover for military preparations? Furthermore, their main conflict with Iran began with the revolution of 1979, when Ayatollah Khamenei held power. He overthrew their so-called ally, the ‘Shah of Iran,’ who had better relations with both the US and Israel.
The reason behind the consistent planning of overthrowing the regime of Khamenei was different to both parties, but they both had similar interest. Iran was not acknowledging the legitimacy of Israel, and Israel was under the perception of an ‘existential’ threat for decades. The issue with the US was that Khamenei’s regime had adopted an anti-Western foreign policy, and it has been resistant to US policies in the region.
Thus, there was a structured hostility between the parties, and the regime change was claimed as the main reason for war by the Trump. The supreme leader has been assassinated in the starting days, along with senior officials of the Iranian state. But the regime hadn’t been weakened. They have set a grand strategy of not backing off, even if the leaders are downed. This looks like a ‘decentralized’ art of war.
Additionally, there are few perceptions of the purposes of war that are behind the curtain. Firstly, the most significant is the perception of ‘Greater Israel.’ Interestingly, according to the map of Greater Israel, Iran is not included in it. Then why have they attacked Iran, and the perception of Greater Israel also growing? It is simple and clear. To achieve the Greater Israel plan, they have to suppress Iran, as it is a single threat to the great powers in the region. By wiping them out, their way would be clearer. Secondly, there is an imperialist strategy to take control over the resources of Iran, as the incident of Venezuelan president could be taken as an example of Trump’s intentions. Thirdly, the perception of the clash of civilizations. The concept of the ‘West and the Rest’ should be kept in mind. Ostensibly, the West has turned into a civilizational clash with the rest of Muslim civilization. But it is not just limited to the clash; it has rising global implications.
The war has posed serious global economic implications, especially after the closure of the ‘Strait of Hormuz,’ as it is an important piece of global real estate in terms of the energy sector and one of the busiest and most strategically significant shipping routes in the world. It would increase oil prices globally and would lead to global inflation, especially in sectors like food, transport, and energy. In this, most affected would be the powers that are dependent on energy imports through the route, such as India, China, Japan, and South Korea. They would face high economic pressure. Iran would suffer heavily as its exports are being driven through the route.
This war will have significant impacts on Pakistan, as it is already a severely debt-ridden economy. The routes of its exports are closed, as Gulf countries are in a conflict. The majority of the Pakistani labor is present in the Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. Their remittances are a driving factor to the economy. If their work stopped, wouldn’t it affect the families of the people abroad as well as the already underdeveloped economy? Would powers such as Russia and China then intervene when the war severely affects the global economies? If not de-escalated, it could turn countries years, even decades, backward.
Ultimately, there are no clear signs of de-escalation of the war yet, and water is running through the head. The situation is becoming increasingly unpredictable, and the risk of wider regional or even global consequences cannot be ignored. The cat is jiggling the bell, and the conflict shouldn’t be just managed but transformed if not resolved. Major powers capable of mediating should act on time before it is too late. Rationally, they should know that it is not just bounded to economic crises, and if they didn’t prioritize it rapidly, they would be responsible for the lives of thousands of people who would become the scapegoats of the war, driven by perceptions of the leaders. Apparently, enabling crimes by silence and inaction is a crime itself.
