By P.K.Balachandran/Sunday Observer

Colombo, March 22 – If the Gulf States and European nations are refusing to join the US in its fight against Iran, and are opting for restraint and diplomacy instead, it is not because the American campaign is unjust or a violation of international law, but because it is hurting their economies.

The Gulf States’ enviable infrastructure is getting hit, and the world’s confidence in their proverbial safety has been shaken. The Gulf States are no doubt annoyed by the Iranian bombing, but they also see some justification in Iran’s argument that it had no option but to neutralise the American military bases in the Gulf States after having been subjected to merciless bombardment.

As for the European nations, the war that was initiated by the US and Israel without taking into account their views has dismayed them to the extent that they are cold to President Trump’s demand for military assistance in his hour of dire need. The alienation from the US only increased when they had to negotiate with Iran, and not the US, to get their vessels safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who had declared his permanent backing for Israel in February, had to tell the Iranian President that he was a “friend of Iran” only to get Indian vessels to cross the Strait unharmed.

All this is because the balance of power in West Asia had shifted from the US-Israeli combine to Iran. And this happened because Iran’s military strategy was better than that of the US and Israel, though in terms of armaments, the US-Israeli side was infinitely better placed.

According to Prof. Robert A.Pape, Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPST), Operation “Epic fury” began impressively with the killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). But within hours, any hope that the precise decapitation strikes would limit the scope of the war was dashed, he added in his piece in the US journal Affairs. Foreign

Iran’s retaliatory strikes represented the strategy of “horizontal escalation” which is a method of transforming the stakes in a conflict by widening the scope of retaliation and extending its duration, Prof. Pape explains.

Horizontal and Vertical Escalation

Horizontal escalation” occurs when a warring party widens the geographic and political scope of a conflict rather than intensifying it vertically, in a single theatre.
The US and Israel thought that killing the topmost Iranian leader and a few others in quick succession would lead to the collapse of the regime. Pape calls this tactic “vertical escalation”. If Iran had also indulged in vertical escalation, it would have responded by trying to kill the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu and a bunch of top Israeli leaders. But Iran chose not to do that and instead extended the sphere of conflict to hit the enemy at multiple points in quick succession.

Bombs rained on US bases in the Gulf and targets in Israel, and finally on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian missiles slammed into interceptors over Doha and Abu Dhabi. At Al Udeid Air Base, in Qatar—the forward headquarters of US Central Command—personnel took shelter as interceptors streaked overhead. Air defences flashed into action at US bases at Al Dhafra in the UAE and Ali Al Salem in Kuwait. Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia reported incoming drones. Near the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, naval forces were placed on heightened alert.

The Gulf countries protested to Iran, but since the balance of power had shifted to Iran, and the US bases could not provide them cover, they began to talk of an end to hostilities and a negotiated settlement.

Countries in Europe that are military allies of the US and sympathetic to Israel, did not respond to Trump’s calls for assistance and instead were talking with Iran to get their ships a peaceful passage. Fuming, Trump swore that he would never forget this betrayal.

Attributing all this to Iran’s adoption of a horizontal or a spacial escalation instead of vertical escalation, Prof. Pape said: “This is an especially appealing strategy for the weaker parties in a military contest. Instead of trying to defeat a stronger adversary head-on, the weaker side multiplies arenas of risk by drawing economic sectors and the public into the remit of the conflict.”

Sri Lankan War

During the Sri Lankan war, both the LTTE and the Sri Lankan army had adopted the strategy of horizontal escalation, the LTTE did so first, and the army towards the end of the conflict.

The LTTE hit a large number of targets spread over a large area and flummoxed the Sri Lankan forces, which were static and confined to camps. But when General Sarath Fonseka took over the army, he organised eight-member teams of lightly armed men and sent them deep into areas held by the LTTE to kill its leaders and disappear into the jungle. This time, it was the LTTE’s turn to get flummoxed. The army’s horizontal escalation was an important factor in the defeat of the LTTE in 2009.

Vietnam War

Prof. Pape says that horizontal escalation had worked in the past to the detriment of the United States. In Vietnam and Serbia, US adversaries responded to overwhelming displays of American airpower with horizontal escalation, eventually leading to an American defeat,” Prof. Pape recalls.
By 1967, the United States had dropped three times more tonnage worth of bombs on North Vietnam than it had used in World War II. Operation “Rolling Thunder”, launched in 1965, was designed to break Hanoi’s will and destroy its capacity to wage war. By 1967, US airpower had devastated Vietnam. But in 1968, North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces launched coordinated attacks on more than 100 cities and towns across South Vietnam. They breached the US embassy compound in Saigon. They fought for weeks in Hue. They struck provincial capitals simultaneously. The attacks shattered the perception that a South Vietnamese and American victory was near. President Lyndon Johnson soon announced that he would not seek re-election as public confidence in the prosecution of the war had eroded.

Political Escalation

Rather than confining retaliation to just Israel, Iran struck or aimed at targets in at least nine countries, most of them hosting US forces. These were Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The message to those countries was that hosting American forces would lead to severe consequences. And in the US itself, the widening scope of the war has alarmed members of Congress.

World Rethinking About the War

The world has been forced to rethink the war as Iran leveraged economic chokepoints. Roughly a fifth of global oil shipments transit the Strait of Hormuz. Early shipping data suggest traffic through the Strait has fallen by about 75% since the war began. If this war drags on, Gulf governments that have quietly expanded security cooperation with the US and secretly with Israel, will have to disentangle themselves from their ties, as otherwise they may lose their people’s support.

A protracted war would also reshape American politics. A grinding regional war marked by energy price spikes, US casualties, and uncertain objectives will cause disquiet at home. Sizable elements of President Donald Trump’s political coalition have been wary of Middle Eastern entanglements and have accused US leaders of simply following Israel’s lead. Trump’s base may dwindle further. Prof. Pape warns.

“Given these realities, the wisest choice may well be for the United States to accept a limited loss now rather than risk compounding losses later,” he recommends.

END