Eurasia Press & News
Paradoxically, President Donald Trump appears to have secured an end or perhaps a pause to the 12-day Iran-Israel war with a fragile ceasefire but there is no guarantee that it will not resume again. Even Trump isn’t confident about the “ceasefire” he is taking credit for. Interestingly, notwithstanding the claims made by Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu having emerged as winners, neither can authoritatively assert this. One thing is clear is that Iran has definitely not lost the war. And this has apparently shocked both Trump and Netanyahu more than they probably bargained for. Besides, it isn’t as yet clear whether nuclear sites targeted by Trump and Netanyahu have really “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. The attacks may have set it back by some time but if Iran still has the required capability to produce nuclear weapons, chances are that the war has pushed it further towards this goal. It may even choose to cease remaining a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is possible, Trump himself isn’t too confident about having really succeeded on this front, even though he has loudly stated so. This is marked by his asserting his attentions to bomb Iran again if it pursues the nuclear weapons program. The point is if this program has been “totally obliterated,” how can it be expected to be pursued again within a short period of time, at least during Trump’s stay in White House?
There is another angle to this 12-day conflict, which probably US and its allies didn’t expect. Muslims are primarily divided into groups – Sunnis and Shias. Iran is the only Muslim country with Shias in a majority. US apparently expected full support from other Arab countries (which are primarily Sunni Muslims) in Iran-Israel war. This didn’t happen. Rather, Israel was strongly criticized unilaterally as well as multilaterally by Arab countries for initiating the war against Israel. The Arab countries adopted a different diplomatic stance after Iran struck at a US base in Qatar, criticizing Iran for it. Their diplomatic approach towards Israel, however, did not change. Diplomatic and economic isolation of Iran by US and its allies has been practiced for quite some time. However, recent past has witnessed improvement of ties between Arab countries and Iran.
Shrewd as well as strategic diplomacy displayed by Arab countries in recent years, particularly after the phase of so-called Arab Spring, was apparently not included in Trump’s calculations when he chose to support Israel against Iran. At most, he expected them to remain silent and certainly not line up supporting Iran. They strongly asserted their diplomatic voice with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) holding a two-day meeting (June 21-22) at Istanbul (Turkey), in which they denounced “violation of the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well as international laws and conventions.” Asserting the need for de-escalation of Israel-Iran war, the OIC called on “international community to take deterrent measures to stop this aggression and make Israel accountable for crimes committed.” This special session was held, reportedly at Iran’s request. Iran’s Foreign Minister participated in it.
Notwithstanding all the differences between US and Russia as well as China, Arab countries have chosen to entertain diplomatic ties with the three. Iran is a strong ally of Russia and China. The era when Arab countries chose to be allied with primarily US has ceased to exist. It is possible, Trump’s decision to support Israel’s war against Iran weighed the diplomatic gains in his basket with at least half the world, including Arab countries, choosing to support this or at least remaining silent by not opposing it. Opposition voiced against it was louder than probably even thought of.
There is a view that United States’ decision to overthrow Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein may have been decided by latter’s decision to turn against the use of American dollar. He opted for the multilateral euro. Considering it a challenge to US dollar, that of competition from euro, Washington decided to blame Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and opt for overthrowing him. This euro-point has also been dismissed as false. Yes, but that of Iraq possessing WMD was also false. One never knows when actual or manufactured/manipulated “news” plays greater role in moves decided by superpower or even by smaller powers in their respective terrains. Of course, Iran has posed no such challenge to US, that is similar to Saddam’s gambling on euro. But one cannot refrain from considering the recent war economically also. Economic sanctions against Iran and subsequently against those doing business with it have been practiced for quite some time. However, Iran has managed to remain fairly stable and have strong ties with its allies and so forth. It is possible that the reality of Iran being in rival’s camp and despite sanctions against it having remained intact, that it has not been home to internal chaos, apparently doesn’t appear acceptable to United States.
Iran has not suddenly decided to opt for the nuclear path. But Iran has certainly not been in good books of United States for quite some time. And Israel has been eager to target it, not simply because of “threat” posed by it. At present, politically and diplomatically, ego of Netanyahu was pumped by that of Trump and support. The two were keen to display dominance by leading to “collapse” of Iran and its government. It hasn’t happened yet. This certainly spells a key lesson for Washington and Tel Aviv. Irrespective of whatever their command be over their media, their allies, the entire world shouldn’t be expected to always move as desired/designed by their strategies as well as weapons. Despite the two having claimed “success,” against Iran, the reality that many are not convinced by this claim cannot be ignored. Interestingly, Trump himself seems to have doubt about this. Else, why would he deliberate on striking again at Iran because of its nuclear (weapons-oriented) program? Equally significant lesson, during the course of this 12-day war, is perhaps the need for all to be on alert about the degree to which even most prominent diplomatic messages should be relied upon. Even though they appear to be most commanding as well as most powerful!
