Trump's war has not led to clear strategic gains, but has depleted U.S. military capabilities.
Afrasianet - British journalist Ambrose Evans Pritchard argues that the U.S. intervention in the region has not led to clear strategic gains, but has depleted the military, economic and political capabilities of the United States, opening the way for its adversaries to consolidate their influence.
In an article in The Telegraph, the writer explained that US President Donald Trump's policy towards Iran represents a new model of what historian Barbara Tuchman has described as a "march of folly", i.e. the rush of major powers towards military and political decisions that conflict with their own interests as a result of miscalculating the consequences and relying on illusions of power.
The article drew on historical experiences documented by Tuchman, including the mistakes of the European powers in the Renaissance, Britain's decisions that led to the independence of the American colonies, and the experience of the United States in the Vietnam War, to confirm that the common denominator between them was that decision-makers ignored warnings, did not understand the nature of adversaries, and insisted on military options that could have been avoided with greater wisdom and diplomacy.
The war with Iran has led to a significant depletion of U.S. weapons stockpiles, despite warnings from military commanders about the impact this will have on Washington's ability to face future challenges, especially in light of the rivalry with China and Russia.
A struggle that is hard to get out of
Evans-Pritchard reviewed military estimates that the United States has consumed a large portion of its stockpile of air defense and long-range attack missiles, and that it could take years to rebuild that arsenal.
The Trump administration has found itself caught in a conflict that is difficult to get out of, while the IRGC seeks to capitalize on developments on the ground and impose its terms.
He believes that the expansion of the confrontations to the Red Sea and other parts of the Middle East has threatened global energy supplies, as oil and gas facilities and tankers have been attacked, which has been reflected in energy prices and financial markets.
The article warns that rising oil prices alone do not reflect the scale of the crisis, as supply disruptions and declining global refining capacity have caused fuel costs to rise, which could fuel a new inflationary wave in the United States.
The author links these developments to the rise in US bond yields , and the impact of this on the mortgage and corporate finance markets, considering that the repercussions of the war could extend to the US economy before the midterm elections.
Strikes that did not achieve the target
In assessing the political and military consequences of the war, the strikes on the Iranian leadership did not achieve the expected goal, but rather strengthened the cohesion of the Iranian regime and turned the conflict into a factor that unites sectors of the Iranian people in the face of an external threat.
Analysts have also been quoted as saying that weakening the previous leadership could lead to the rise of a more hardline nationalist military movement inside Iran, and may increase the likelihood of a move toward developing a military nuclear program.
The article asserts that the diplomatic option was available, noting that Iran was committed to the nuclear deal signed during the administration of former President Barack Obama before Trump's withdrawal from it, and that the United States did not offer a clear alternative after the cancellation of the agreement, but rather wanted to achieve a complete political victory rather than reach a viable settlement.
The war has exposed the limits of American power, especially in terms of the ability to fight multiple conflicts at once, and it has become clear that controlling Iran militarily will be a very difficult task, given the size of the country, its geography, and its military capabilities, and any attempt to impose a radical regime change will require huge human and military resources that do not seem available or politically acceptable.
Source of risk rather than protection
The crisis has damaged the credibility of the United States with its allies in the Gulf, and some countries have come to view the U.S. military presence as a source of risk rather than protection, which could prompt them to strengthen their ties with China, which has become a key economic partner for many energy-producing countries.
At the international level, the article believes that Trump's policies have contributed to weakening the Western alliance, giving Beijing an opportunity to strengthen its image as a more stable and responsible power, and that the energy shock from the war will accelerate the global shift towards alternative energy sources and electrical technology, benefiting China as a leading power in the fields of clean energy and batteries.
The war on Iran provides a new example of decisions made by great powers under overconfidence in power, Evans-Pritchard concluded , warning that instead of maintaining its leading position in the global order, the United States may have contributed to weakening its influence and strengthening the positions of its rivals.
The key lesson from this crisis is that military force alone is not enough to achieve political goals, and that the lack of strategic vision may turn tactical victories into long-term losses.
________________
Source: The Telegraph
________________
