Can Baydarol
The US-Israel offensive against Iran has now entered its fourth week. No one—not even those who started the conflict or intend to continue it—has any clear idea when the offensive, or rather the war, will end. It is clear, however, that things are not going well for the whole world and that the war is bringing with it an uncontrolled and dangerous escalation.
First of all, let’s list the developments that are not going well for the world. Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of global oil trade passes, has led to a very sharp rise in oil and natural gas prices. Estimates suggest that if the loss of 15 million barrels of daily oil transit persists for six months, the price per barrel—which stood at around $63 prior to the war due to a supply surplus—could reach $170.
It is clear that this situation would place an excessive burden on the budgets of oil-importing nations, which have been grappling with serious economic problems since the pandemic. For countries like ours, which are already facing a crisis within a crisis, the consequences would be far more dire.
So, is there no one benefiting from this situation?
Russia, whose sanctions have been eased, appears to be the primary beneficiary. Aside from Russia increasing its oil revenues, it is even possible that it could stand to gain from the war it is waging against Ukraine.
Whilst the gravity of the situation for Iran, a party to the war, is one thing, the fact that Iran stands to profit is another point we must note. The powerful adversary, the US, has permitted the sale of oil carried by Iranian vessels until mid-April.
It is also possible to state that another beneficiary is the US, which has a surplus in oil and shale gas production. Indeed, based on this situation, we have even encountered interpretations suggesting that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran is being supported by the US itself.
Leaving the Strait of Hormuz aside for the moment, let us emphasise that a far greater danger for the world unfolded on the 22nd night of the war. In retaliation for Israel’s strike on its own nuclear facilities, Iran struck the Dimona region, where Israel’s nuclear facilities are located. Does this scenario undermine the ‘balance of deterrence’ principle—which, since the days of the Cold War, has prevented adversaries possessing nuclear power from resorting to it? It has raised this question. If the doubts expressed at this juncture are genuine, the question of whether the world is rapidly being dragged towards a nuclear war has also emerged. Indeed, unfortunately, we are living in an age where sensible leaders who respect the rules have vanished, and leaders prone to unhinged behaviour who disregard the rules have taken their place.
Amidst all these developments, Trump’s call for NATO and its member states to come to his aid was also noted last week. Naturally, given that there has been no attack on the US—and that the US is the aggressor—the well-known Article 5 of the NATO Treaty (an attack on one is considered an attack on all, and a joint response is mounted against the aggressor) cannot be invoked. Trump has gone so far as to characterise the lack of assistance as a betrayal and has wasted no time in signalling his intention to withdraw from NATO in the near future. However, another question has now come to the fore. To the extent that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz threatens the global economy and the strike on the Dimona region threatens global security, would a Western alliance emerge—either under the NATO umbrella or outside it—to support the US and Israel against Iran?
Naturally, we must also factor in the US’s intention to land a ground force on Hark Island—which is of particular importance for the control of the Strait of Hormuz—with the contribution of three new warships and 2,500 new marines. At this point, let us immediately emphasise that an operation involving a ground force, even if limited to Hark Island, carries very serious risks. It is clear that such an operation would result in a large number of casualties. The question of how much the US public’s reaction against Trump—particularly given the US President’s consideration of the November Senate re-election—can be tolerated if US military casualties, which currently stand in the tens, were to rise to the hundreds, is laid bare in all its clarity.
On the other hand, as we have noted in previous articles, there is no point in expecting a regime change without a ground operation. But can a military operation of sufficient intensity to bring about a regime change be carried out? At this point, it is also necessary to emphasise that there is a profound lack of understanding regarding Iran’s geography and demographic structure. Even if we were to include the Kurdish groups in Iran and the anti-regime Iranian opposition (!) alongside the US marines, it is widely argued that this would not be sufficient for a regime change.
So does the US really want a regime change in Iran? Or is it only Israel that wants a regime change? At this very point, it seems inevitable that a growing divergence of opinion will emerge among those waging war against Iran. Whilst a regime in Iran that does not sell cheap energy to China and instead utilises its energy resources in integration with the West appears sufficient from the US perspective, for Israel, a change of regime is deemed essential. The coming days will provide an opportunity to make more definitive assessments within this framework.
Can the Chinese factor be ignored in all this?
Behind the scenes of the oil dispute stretching from Venezuela to Iran, aren’t there cheap oil sources for which China has always been the supplier? Won’t the rare earth elements that the US is fighting over—or has announced it will fight over—also be the cause of future developments or lawlessness?
So, whilst the clear signs of an operation against China are plain for all to see, is China still choosing to remain silent? Or has it already begun waging missile wars via Iran? Come to think of it, where exactly do we fit Russia into this equation?
Let’s set the major players aside for a moment; where do we place those Arab states that have voluntarily accepted the role of US satellites, or those who leave no stone unturned in opposing US imperialism yet do not hesitate to act as imperialism’s tools when it suits them?
Come to think of it, do we have any idea how we’re going to get along with those we haven’t yet declared ‘persona non grata’?
Are you among those who say, ‘Let our minds remain in our bodies, that’s enough’?