Thoughts on the Iran War
- Karl Johansson
- för 3 dagar sedan
- 4 min läsning
Israel and the US has started a war in Iran, here are some possible second order effects.
Last week’s post where I declared that it was unlikely that the US would attack Iran was quite the forecasting miss. I may not have the credibility to speculate on the war, but I will offer some thoughts nonetheless. First about the war itself, why and how, then about how it could play out, and finally broadening the focus to speculate on wider effects.
Like in the twelve-day war, I strongly believe that Israel and its prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu are driving forces in making the attacks happen. Netanyahu has an ideological opposition to the Iranian regime, and is up there with the greats like Abe Shinzo and Vladimir Putin when it comes to manipulating Trump. Not to say that there are not others in Trump’s orbit who are glad to see Teheran bombed, secretary of state Marco Rubio comes immediately to mind. Still, the timing of attacking now and the scale of the bombardment suits Netanyahu.
The commonality between Netanyahu and Trump is of course that both have domestic issues to distract from, legal challenges and the Epstein files respectively, and an adventure serves both while also having high minded appeals like eliminating an existential threat to Israel and toppling a regime who murders protestors by the tens of thousands. Still, wars have a habit of escalating out of control, and now that the Ayatollah is dead there is no reason for Teheran to hold back. Iran’s domestic and international interests converge in the need for a forceful response.
I doubt there will be boots on the ground in Iran, which is a relief in terms of the level of violence in the war. But it also risks making Iran, a country of 90 million people a bombed out wasteland where extremism and factional violence thrive. The foundational fact at the heart of military campaigns is that it is infantry on the ground which actually does things, artillery, cavalry, air power, and all the rest are just support for infantry. Without infantry on the ground there is no one to make sure that the war aims are met, and the situation risks spiralling in unintended directions.
Perhaps the regime can hold together, or perhaps not and we get something like the Syrian civil war but four and a half times bigger. On the topic of boots on the ground, there is a real risk of Israel having to invade Lebanon to fight Hizbullah, or an uprising in the West Bank. All of Israel’s and the US’ adversaries if have a golden opportunity to strike, and it would not take much to go from a limited air campaign to a regional war. Especially if the war is fought at range.
With Afghanistan and Pakistan fighting while Iran is getting bombed by the US there is a lot of upheaval in the Islamic world, and there could be a new moment for militias and non-state actors to gain combat experience. Like Mujahideen in the 80’s acting as the training ground for the terrorists of the 90’s and the War on Terror, one unintended consequence of the war could be to create a new generation of Islamist fighters. Not to overplay the similarities, but Mujahideen responded to an attack by the godless communists, a deeply ideological motivation, and there are still people in the Shia world deeply committed to the ideals of the Islamic Republic and the Iranian revolution.
Another unintended effect from the US’ perspective is how oil prices will rise. Iran has announced that it is closing the Strait of Hormuz, which will mean a sharp reduction in Middle Eastern oil making it to Asian and European markets. As the price of oil is set at the margin, it could make petrol a lot more expensive which is a political issue for incumbents across the globe. Elections in Denmark, Sweden, Peru, Colombia, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, New Zealand, and of course the US midterms could all be affected in different ways.
Russia is a big beneficiary of the war, as it gets higher oil prices which will sustain its military spending, a chance to highlight US hypocrisy, and less attention on the war in Ukraine. The big losers, aside from the Iranian civilians of course, is Japan, South Korea, and China who are all big energy importers. Perhaps higher petrol prices will lead to another uptick in green electricity generation and adoption of EVs (one can hope).
As much as Khamenei stood in the way for a better Iran, I don’t think killing him with airstrikes is a good thing. If Khamenei had his choice I’m sure this was exactly the way he wanted to go: as a martyr killed in the fight against the great and little Satan. The way to a better Iran was through peaceful protests, not air-dropped ordnance. Now that the killing has begun let us hope that civilians are spared, and that the country does not fall victim to civil war.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about Iran here or the rest of my writings here. I also have a section for longer reads I call essays here, I particularly recommend my series called The Bird & The Technoking exploring Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter, and its political and cultural implications. It'd mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Cover photo by Lara Jameson from Pexels, edited by Karl Johansson
Kommentarer