War without logic: The hidden drivers of the Iran conflict

The Iran war may go down in history as Washington’s most erratic foreign policy adventure. President Donald Trump’s chaotic messaging, and the direct impact on economies and financial markets globally, has led to unprecedented speculation about US decision-making.

The conventional assumption is that the President determines foreign policy based on the national interest, filtered through his own electoral strategy and ideology. The Iran war has underscored the increasingly evident fact that none of this is true.

Puncturing the veil and seeing what actually drives American foreign policy is only possible if we ask ‘cui bono’ — who benefits? Understanding this is essential for policymakers in countries like India, informing strategic responses. It is also essential for the US public in comprehending the state of their democracy.

More from Opinion

National Interest

The Iran war is by no honest measure in the US national interest. A country’s national interest is defined by the security and economic interests of the overall population of that country.

The present state of play — Iran’s power structure intact, its missiles still flying, enriched uranium still possessed — were not surprises that reveal American miscalculations. They were predictable and predicted. Contrary to Western media claims, both the CIA and Mossad knew of the lack of genuine mass opposition to the Iranian government. Given historical precedent and socio-psychological research, experts expected that decapitating the leadership would increase government popularity and public will to resist invasion. The decentralised nature of the Iranian command structure and its ability to continue military action despite loss of the political leadership was also known.

With regard to stopping nuclear enrichment, even if this stated war aim had been expected to succeed, it still fails to demonstrate pursuit of the national interest. Policymakers knew Iran posed little nuclear threat to America.  Moreover, Iran’s enrichment levels only grew after Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, which Tehran had adhered to.

Also predictable were Iran’s retaliatory measures: Israel hammered, US bases destroyed, hundreds of American casualties, Gulf states bombarded and their economic models terminated. Higher energy prices benefit Russia (and Iran). Symbolically, Washington has already lost with the bursting of the myth of US air invincibility; cheap drones rendering billion-dollar aircraft carriers unusable.

The Straits of Hormuz are and will likely remain under Iranian control or unusable, damaging most Western economies. Combined with the likely expulsion of US troops from the Gulf and Iraq, this is a huge strategic loss that could end American regional hegemony. It hastens the end of Washington’s most lucrative geopolitical tool — the petrodollar. This in turn hastens the end of US global hegemony.

On the economic front, American taxpayers have spent $55 billion — estimated to rise to $1 trillion if the war is prolonged — for the privilege of higher energy prices and future shortages of essentials like food.

The US expanding its arsenal and becoming bogged down in Iran strengthens Washington’s only true strategic threat — China. Yes, had the US successfully regime-changed Iran and installed a puppet that allowed America to control oil flows to China, this would have been a strategic win. But this was known to be improbable, not least because Beijing and Moscow would have kept supplying Iran to prevent it happening, for as long as it took for the US public to pressure its government to end the war.

Electoral Priorities?

If the Iran war was so expectedly destructive to the national interest, then did Trump decide it based on his own electoral priorities? It would seem that President Trump would be susceptible to the allure of popularity. Yet Iran has seen the most unpopular start of any war ever polled. While Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam all began with majority public support, the Iran war had an approval rating of negative 20 two weeks in. The war has effectively destroyed Trump’s political future and those of his successors (Vance or the Trump offspring), his legacy and his MAGA movement.

Ideology?

It is also obvious the war clashes with two core tenets of Trump’s ideology, the aspects that most differentiated him from establishment Democrats and Republicans:  no new wars and America First. The unpopular new war is widely deemed to be anything but America First. Unlike the oil booty and alleged drug prevention that was claimed to justify kidnapping President Maduro, this war is widely deemed to be in the interests of another country. Fifty-five per cent of Americans felt Israel would benefit from the war, while a similar majority, 59 per cent, felt the US would suffer.

Cui Bono

With neither the national interest nor Trump’s political interests benefitting from the war, to understand its true drivers we are forced to ask ‘cui bono’ — who actually benefits?

One set of perennial winners are arms manufacturers. Win, lose or draw, these corporations capitalise on the $2 billion-a-day taxpayer largesse. They act via the military-industrial complex, which has influenced US foreign policy since at least 1961 when Eisenhower coined the term.

Furthermore, while the overall economy suffers, certain influential sectors benefit. The US energy industry gains from higher prices and restricted competitors. A micro segment of insider investors wins from foreknowledge of Trump’s market-manipulating announcements.

Did Israel benefit? The likelihood of Iran attacking Tel Aviv unprovoked was known to be negligible, with Tehran’s regional allies reacting to Israeli actions, recent or past. Moreover, it was predictable that the war would — short of a nuclear strike by Israel (which is precluded anyway by China and Russia) — likely enhance Tehran’s regional power, weakening Tel Aviv’s position. Israel’s economy is struggling, its population fleeing. The war did, however, serve Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ideological and legal interests.

The Iran war stands out from previous conflicts in the predictability of both its failures and its unpopularity. For Indian and other countries’ policymakers, understanding cui bono — who benefits — enables accurate prediction of decisions regarding escalations and de-escalations, agendas, red lines, timeframes and off-ramps, informing future Indian negotiators.

For the American people, the Iran war shatters the already questionable assumption that the US President decides policy based on national interest, or even his own political interests.  It raises questions on whether the elected President is actually in charge and acts without fear or favour. In doing so, it forges another major crack in the increasingly fractured façade of American democracy.

(The author is a former diplomat, political advisor and geopolitical strategist. The views expressed are personal and solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)