The Costs of America's Whimsical War

—

Gist is below ..

Wars must have purpose.

When leaders easily change their minds, then wars look whimsical. The US war aims and objectives in Iran speak as much about its shifting priorities. The assumption that Iran would fold has proved quite wrong. Rather, if the war were to prolong, it would put the US military build-up to test, while Iran continuing to undertake slow retaliatory strikes.

The question then is, where the war is headed, how long would it last and at what cost.

Shifting aims

Three aspects are pertinent ...

• First, there is little doubt that regimes can be autocratic, but that does not call for decapitation. The strikes on non-military targets would have come as a shock, even to those who might loathe the regime. That explains the lack of protests, in Iran. No one in the country would want to be attacked, and economically destroyed, even if there is visible hatred of the regime.

• Second, a regime change is less likely to bring in a benign leadership. Instead, the new leaders, after that brutal lesson, are not likely to stop fighting the US and its allies in the region. There is also the dangerous possibility of strengthening Iran’s resolve to produce a nuclear weapon. A resurgent Iran will keep the region volatile, with the war raging at its own pace.

• Third, if the war prolongs, Iran’s leaders might even be tempted to expand the war geographically. This evokes the memories of the 1980s tanker war. In this age of unmanned aerial and un-crewed surface systems, a tanker war could be even more lethal. Iran’s new tanker strategy could provoke a massive outrage to bring in substantial pressure on the US.

Risks of escalation

Clearly, the US had three rules of intervention in Iran: strike quick and fast; take no casualties; and no ground campaign. Early targeting of Ayatollah Khamenei could have created the belief that escalation will remain controllable. In conflicts with no precise aims and objectives, the incentives to escalate a fraught conflict are often stronger. And, if professional military advice is shaped by political exigency, the risks of escalation increase.

Besides, if the air power fail to deliver, there is a tendency to escalate, or add another dimension - of ground operations - to the conflict. The problem is, when territorial integrity comes into play, it evokes emotions. Even if the populace hates the regime, it has good reasons to rally behind them. Iran is also not a pushover and the US can ill-afford a land campaign.

On the contrary, Iran has a clear strategy. It is determined not to replicate the war fought last year – of large barrages that were intercepted and led to significant losses. This time, they seem to have a steadier campaign – to drag out the conflict; expand geographies; and impose real costs. They are firing fewer missiles, at well dispersed targets. Smaller salvos can lead to faster depletion of interceptors and prove costly in the long term.

Besides, Iran has decentralised its command and control. It has created multiple power centres, anticipating US military action. Each one acting without direct instructions. This worked pretty well. Iranian intentions are amply clear – to suck the US into a difficult war.

What comes next?

While the US certainly wants a short war, the truth is, it hardly aimed to fight a 20-year long war in Afghanistan. The longer Iran can sustain its missile and drone attacks, it is more likely to prolong the conflict. Eventually, it turns into a contest of will – of who could hold out longer – in terms of Iran’s ability to retaliate versus America’s capacity to intercept the strikes.

With the conflict shifting to the straits of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb, risks increase manifold. They are vulnerable for three reasons: their geographical location; the narrow navigable channels; and the ease of targeting of predictable shipping routes. The control of these so-called “marginal seas” will now assume importance. This necessitates high-cost naval operations, besides coping with sky-rocketing shipping costs.

For India, the war puts its policy of strategic autonomy under test. With the war raging at the far edge of its western oceanic periphery, the concern is both economic, and geopolitical. Clearly, it must make sharp policy choices on US or Iran, lest its salience as a leader of the Global South is put to doubt.

It could at least have looked beyond the laws of sea, to call out the targeting of IRIS Dena.