Over-View
Successful conclusion of first round of
negotiations at Bürgenstock and Lucerne, following the signing of
Memorandum of Understanding, between United States and Iran has ushered in hope
for peace- howsoever uneasy and fragile - in West Asia. Oil prices have
dropped, markets have rallied globally and world has had a sigh of relief at
least for the time being. Disruption of energy supply chains has already
induced significant GDP losses, lower growth forecasts, higher inflation
and serious market volatility.
US-Iran war has once again exposed the limits of conventional
military power to vanquish a resolute and resilient force in an asymmetric war in a complex geopolitical theatre. Iran, despite enduring severe devastations,
denied an outright victory to combined military might United States and Israel. It rather succeeded in compelling the
United States to pursue peace on terms that appear far more favourable to
Iran. A regime that has existed as pariah for half a century appears poised
to end its global isolation with removal of all sanctions and offer of a major
economic reconstruction programme. The theocratic dispensation in
Tehran finds itself more entrenched after a war that threatened to topple it.
Establishment of direct communication line between
Washington and Tehran to ward off accidental triggering of conflict, which is
highly plausible in the prevailing ambience of distrust, progress on formation of technical
working groups on sanctions relief for Iran, agreement on nuclear issues
through a closer inspection, and mechanisms to secure maritime traffic through
the Strait of Hormuz, as well as de-escalation of tensions in Lebanon,
represent significant progress in the peace process.
Nevertheless, deeper security, ideological and
geopolitical faultlines that fueled the war remain largely unresolved. Hence,
the key stakeholders may have to stretch their capacity, commitment and
innovation to translate the current “agreement on a 60-day roadmap toward a
final settlement” into an endurable peace and stability in the region.
Why Iran Appears A Winner
The “interim agreement” appears victory for Iran
largely due to the MoU provisions like respect for Iranian sovereignty, partial relief on sanctions, release of frozen assets, waivers on selected oil and
petrochemical exports, easing of economic restrictions on Iran, commitment to a
reconstruction programme of at least 300 billion US dollars and endorsement of final deal by a binding UNSC resolution. Iranian Foreign
Minister Araghchi confirmed "major
progress" on such issues in talks in Switzerland. Simultaneously, Iran's lead negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf
brushed aside President Trump's threat of renewed military action, citing
failure of such military actions to intimidate Iran.
American firepower with its formidable surveillance and precision strike capacity, stealth technology, logistics network and overall force projection, backed by Israel's high tech-intelligence prowess failed to vanquish Iran. Iran held its ground, despite losing almost its entire top political-military leadership, thousands of trained IRGC personnel, almost half of its air, naval and ground military assets, besides suffering tens of thousands of civilian casualties. Massive infrastructure damage, assessed in hundreds of billions of dollars, and big hits on key economic installations and ports also failed to dent Iran's spirit. Low-cost high-impact Iranian drones, manufactured and deployed in very large numbers with flexibility, compelled US-Israeli forces to expend interceptor missiles costing 50 to 500 times more. Iran took the attack to US bases across the region, compelling Americans to defend a larger area and face potential alienation of its allies.
While direct U.S. military losses are estimated only around $50 billions, with cumulative losses assessed at $100 billion, the overall threat to American credibility and goodwill in the region and beyond appeared profound. Energy production disruptions and infrastructure damage is assessed to have caused estimated GDP contraction to the tune of 3-6 percent for American allies in the gulf. They are believed to have pressured United States to opt for early exit from the war.
On the other hand,
large-scale civilian casualties, mass sufferings and infrastructure damage in
US-Israel attacks rallied the Iranian civilians support their Govt ignoring their own grievances. Trump and
Netanyahu, who had walked into the war with a call for regime change in Iran,
have landed up strengthening the theocracy in Tehran.
Why Sustainable Peace Shall Be Difficult
The eventual fate of peace continues to be
overshadowed by poor trust, broken commitments in the past, competing threat
perceptions and strategic irreconcilability of the stakeholders. The suspicion
that Trump may use diplomacy as a smokescreen to topple the Iranian regime is
grounded in experiences of the past. US had initiated this war in February,
just a day after Omani Foreign Minister had declared that an understanding had
been reached between the two sides on all key issues. It appeared that Americans
were preparing for the war using diplomacy as a distraction.
Simultaneously, President Trump’s frequent recourse to
high-risk deception, bluff, bullying and unpredictability may be effective
bargaining strategy in tactical corporate deals. But these have dented
his credibility as a responsible statesman.
Similarly, Iran’s adversaries remain skeptical of
Tehran's long-term intentions. They may suspect that even if Iran temporarily
accepts curb on nuclear activities under pressure, it is unlikely to give up
its aspiration for nuclear weapons. Many Iranian regime insiders have openly
stated that a nuclear weapon alone offered a credible deterrence against future
US-Israeli aggressions.
Iran’s
ambitions for regional domination, by undermining American allies, is well
known. Its elaborate network of over half a dozen proxies, including Hezbollah and Houthis,
possess varying degrees of capacity for irregular proxy war. They have
potential to disrupt of regional maritime traffic, threatening other gulf
states. Hence, US allies in the region may oppose any concession to Iran that
may alter the larger strategic balance in the gulf.
Further, a degree of indirect Chinese support to
Iranian regime is assessed to have bolstered the latter’s capacities to withstand combined US-Israeli aggression. China has appeared clear about its strategic
objective to expel US and NATO from whole of Asia. Its proximity with Iran, and even others in West Asia, complicates the search for an endurable peace.
Simultaneously, Netanyahu, appears the biggest potential spoiler of peace. His intermittent attacks even after signing of MoU only confirm such apprehension. The very character of Iranian regime poses an existential threat to Israel. But Netnayahu has personally a lot at stakes at home. To deflect potential indictment in corruption charges by just hanging in power, he may still attempt a more audacious covert strike on Iran if there is slightest of opportunity.
Finally, any major American concession to Tehran can invite accusations of weakness for President Trump. Given his intrinsic outlook to always appear strong, he can be trusted with reneging from commitments. Similarly, Iranian side shall also be under pressure to appear strong within its own constituency at home. These can bring additional stress on the fate of final settlement.
India and the Emerging Strategic Landscape
India appears to have lost its strategic advantage of
wider acceptability across internal divides in the region. It has also not been able to
pursue its avowed policy of strategic autonomy vis-a-vis Iran, despite
investing in Chabahar port and enjoying deeper convergence of
interests with Iran. As one of the world's largest energy importers, India
remains vulnerable to disruptions and instability in the Gulf, which impact
energy prices, economic growth and inflation at home.
As a large nation with serious constraints, India
needs stronger strategic capabilities, greater institutional agility and a
deeply calibrated approach to influence and shape its external surroundings to a certain level.
This is an existential necessity in an increasingly
interconnected world.
Conclusion
Transforming the fragile interim peace in West Asia to an endurable one calls for responsible statecraft by major stakeholders. Iran is deeply trapped in its ideological-theocratic moorings. It is in no position to transform abruptly even though the same appears necessary to sustain an equilibrium of even an uneasy co-existence with USA and its allies in the region. There is need for patience and trust on both sides. China’s strategic psyche drives its agenda of geopolitical domination of Asia with a degree of secrecy and subtility that may pose its own challenge. Responsible statecraft warrants key actors to temper their expectations, set their goals realistically and prioritize peace and security in the larger interests of people in the theatre of conflict as well as larger global growth and resilience of global supply chains. Individual leaders may have to contain their private ambitions for glory or appeasement of their respective domestic constituency. Diplomacy needs to be driven with a higher degree of integrity to achieve a threshold of trust that can sustain an endurable peace and security in the region.
No comments:
Post a Comment