Some elements to understand the conflict in West Asia

A Venezuelan international relations expert, Rodríguez Gelfenstein was previously Director of the International Relations of the Presidency of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, his country’s ambassador to Nicaragua and an advisor for international politics for TeleSUR. He sent us this article June 18, a few days before the U.S. bombed Iran. Translation: John Catalinotto. 

Once again, circumstances compel us to take a broad view of international conflicts. I find it reductionist to limit recent events in Western Asia to the idea of a bilateral conflict between Israel and Iran. What is happening has implications that go far beyond a simple confrontation between two countries, however brutal the military conflict may be. 

In reality, what is happening is the expression of a new chapter in the conflict caused by the antagonistic contradictions of an international system marked by a declining pole of power and another pole emerging as an alternative.

The current international system emerged from the pain of World War II and the deception perpetrated by some of the victors about the causes and consequences that led to the war. The triad of world control — consisting of the financial instruments (IMF and World Bank) created at Bretton Woods in 1944, the politicians emanating from the creation of the United Nations and its agencies in 1945 and the military structured around NATO in 1949 — have been the tools that the West has used for the last 80 years to maintain its dominance and hegemony over the planet.

However, by the 1960s, this system was already being eroded by the U.S.’s external deficit. The U.S. imported more than it exported, leading it to finance the difference through the creation of inorganic money [not backed by material reserves, such as gold]. This “forced” Washington to suspend the convertibility of the dollar into gold (which emanated from the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement) in order to establish the dollar as the international currency. 

Paradoxically, it was at this point that a crisis began to emerge in the prevailing capitalist system, which even today, 65 years later, has not been overcome. This laid the foundations for the construction of a new global political and economic order.

This had no immediate chance of developing fully, because the alternative that should have emerged from the Soviet Union and socialism faced its own economic problems, beyond the apparent political stability it displayed. But the approval of the reform and opening-up policy in China in 1978 began to change everything. It was at this moment that Beijing took off towards its transformation into a great world power that could counterbalance the United States, the West and capitalism.

In 1970, more than 90% of world trade was conducted in dollars; today that figure is less than 47%. The most incredible thing is that the United States itself is promoting this change by imposing sanctions on around 3 billion people (around 40% of the world’s population) and preventing them from using the dollar to carry out trade. 

Although the West emerged triumphant from the Cold War and the Soviet Union disappeared, the West did not know how to “manage” its victory. The institutions they created (first and foremost the U.N.) are being torpedoed, violated and rejected by themselves, with the United States withdrawing from many of them. All of this is leading to a process of political and social self-punishment that will result in the destruction of the United States and the West as the center of world power.

Another of its pillars, representative liberal democracy, is being consumed by the cunning blows dealt by its own creators when they realize that it no longer serves as a mechanism for intervention and the irrefutable exercise of social and political supremacy over local, national and global societies and institutions.

Spiral of crisis

In this context, relevant events have occurred in recent years that are a clear expression of this spiral of crisis: the inability of the “competent” bodies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic; the inability to prevent the genocide against the Russian-speaking population in the east of what was Ukraine (a country that allowed a remarkable resurgence of Nazi fascism and racial superiority as a doctrine of government), which forced Russia to act in defense of this population; the impossibility of the planet to prevent another genocide, this one even more brutal and overwhelming against the Palestinian people; … and now this, the endorsement by the United States and the West to give Israel free rein to destroy Iran and its Islamic revolution.

In this context, it is worth providing some elements of analysis to understand what is happening and what could happen next. From these, each person must draw their own conclusions. Let’s take a look:

1. The United States’ biggest mistake at this juncture was to allow Israel to attack Iran while Tehran was negotiating with Washington. This prompted an immediate response from the Arab and Muslim world, which rallied around Iran. Twenty-two countries signed a declaration of support for Tehran within the framework of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), including some of the most powerful and largest countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye. Others that were enemies of Iran in the past, such as Saudi Arabia itself, now give it their support, rejecting Zionist aggression. Everyone sees Iran as the victim of an external attack.
2. For most of the international community, Iran has gone from being part of the “axis of evil” to being a country that has been violated and attacked.
3. These events gave Iran the endorsement to put into practice what it has been building for 40 years, all of which is in accordance with international law and the U.N. Charter.
4. Despite receiving the first blow, which was cunning, surprising and painful, Iran quickly recovered, counterattacked and began to break the paradigm of Israeli military supremacy and the inviolability of its territory.
5. As the days passed and Israel failed to achieve its initial objectives — to destroy Iran’s atomic potential, its military capacity (especially its missile program) and to eliminate its leadership — it began to beg for the direct involvement of the United States in the conflict. This demonstrates its need to save itself from the unexpected and unthinkable destruction of its military, industrial and technological platforms at the hands of Iran, when it believed itself to be untouchable and safe from any action by an external enemy. Thus, its weakness and the failure of the much-vaunted idea of the infallibility of its “iron dome” have become apparent.
6. However, this should not prevent us from considering that Israel is asking for support from a weak, easily blackmailed and emotionally unstable U.S. leader who has caused some of the internal actors in the U.S. political system to operate on their own. Washington is not a monolithic actor, nor is it homogeneous or united around a single leadership, as has been evident in the case of Ukraine. 

Disagreement in U.S. ruling circles

7. In the specific case we are analyzing, the U.S. intelligence agencies and the Armed Forces disagree on participating in direct military action against Iran. They are aware of the strategic weakness of the military component, coupled with internal contradictions that threaten civil war and/or the disintegration of the United States and its institutions. Evidence of this can be seen in the clashes in California and other states, regardless of whether the participants in these events have different objectives, not always linked to criticism of the system and the safeguarding of their “democracy.”
8. Although Trump raises his voice, threatens Iran (while calling for negotiations) and contradicts himself on a daily basis, he should not forget that when the conflict began, Tehran was sitting at the negotiating table. That is an irrefutable truth.
9. The Pentagon has 53,906 officers and soldiers deployed in 21 military, naval and air bases in 10 countries in Western Asia (Türkiye, Kuwait, Syria, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan), many of them accompanied by their families, in addition to a large contingent of civilian workers providing services to the military bases. The furthest is in Jordan, located 1,575 km away, and the closest are in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, located on the western coast of the Persian Gulf, just 200 km from Iranian missile bases.

One of them houses the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, located in Bahrain, where there are 7,000 U.S. military personnel. An attack by Iran — depending on the type of missile used — would reach these bases within 39 and 116 seconds. Compared with this, Pearl Harbor would be remembered as nothing more than “a minor incident.”

10. Even if the United States decided to drop its most powerful bomb — the GBU-57, a 13.6-ton anti-bunker explosive device that can only be dropped from a B-2 stealth bomber — on Iran to destroy its underground nuclear fuel enrichment plants, it would only damage the one in Natanz, while the most important one, in Fordow, would remain intact. These bombs have a penetration power of 60-70 meters, and Fordow is known to be built well over 100 meters below the surface of the earth, although the exact figure is not known. It is worth noting that Israel does not possess the bomb or the aircraft that can deliver it.
11. It is clear that Iran has the potential to inflict real damage on the United States. For the sake of analysis, it should be added that Iran has other cards up its sleeve that are unknown and could cause irreparable damage to Washington and its allies, since they do not have the technological capacity to counteract the action of these weapons.
12. Iran now has reasons to withdraw from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and opt out of the protocols on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In order to remain in the organization, it may demand that Israel join under the same conditions.
13. If negotiations are resumed, the United States has proposed maintaining the limits on the range of ballistic missiles, which Iran had respected until now. However, given the new situation, the range could now be unlimited.
14. Iran is entering a war, but the United States has been fighting one in Ukraine for three years, and Israel has been fighting for two years against Hezbollah, Syria, Palestine and Yemen, all of which have taken a heavy toll. The concept of security established by David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was based on the idea that the eternity of the Zionist state depended on waging short wars outside its territory against weak enemies that would ensure victory — otherwise the existence of the Israeli state could not be guaranteed. Today, these premises are untenable.

Israel lacks popular support

15. Israel lacks a doctrine and popular support, unlike Iran.
16. Iran has an area of 637,000 square miles and a population of 92.5 million. Israel has only 8,550 square miles (occupied territories), of which 2,301 square miles are in Gaza and the West Bank. It has 9.76 million inhabitants, including 2.1 million Arabs (21% of the total). It is worth considering that a significant part of the territory occupied by Israel is desert and unpopulated. In demographic terms, 50% of Iran’s population is under 30, considering that it doubled between 1979 and 2000. Among these young people, there are 5 million students, tens of thousands of whom are scientists trained by the Islamic revolution.
17. Iran is the world’s fourth largest oil producer and also has the third largest reserves globally. It is also the world’s second largest gas producer, with the second largest reserves on the planet.
18. Iran’s important geographical location gives it control over the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el Mandeb. If Tehran decided to close the strait (which is not very difficult), the world would be unable to purchase 35% of the oil traded, bringing the price of a barrel of oil to around $300 from the current $74-78. More than 100 countries around the world would be unable to buy it.
19. Iranian civilization (including pre-Persian) has existed for 7,000 years. The United States has existed for only 250 years; Zionism was born 130 years ago, and it has only been a state for the last 72 years, thanks to an illegal U.N. decision.
20. Iran has been building up its missile arsenal for 30 years. Some of these weapons have been revealed in recent days, but most have not been shown or used. Last night and early this morning, the Sejjil, Fattah 2 and Khorramshahr missiles were used for the first time in history. Each of these missiles can carry up to 2 tons of explosives and fly at 15 Mach (15 times the speed of sound, or 11,500 miles per hour, which is equal to 191 miles per minute). Neither the United States nor Israel has the technology to intercept this type of missile, not only because of its speed but also because of its unique self-guidance mechanism that allows it to change course and prevent its trajectory from being interrupted.
21. It is worth adding that the Pentagon itself announced two days ago that Iran is the first country in the world to have developed plasma weapons, an energy technology that uses plasma (the fourth state of matter) for weapons construction. Plasma can be used to neutralize or destroy targets through projectiles, thermal explosions or disruptive fields, according to U.S. Defense Department spokesman Sean Parnell, as reported in an article published on the Indo-Canadian digital news portal EurAsian Times.
22. Iran has shown courage in its leadership and determination of its armed forces during its response to the assassination of General Soleimani, when it directly attacked U.S. military bases, and recently in its actions in response to Israeli aggression, creating a balance that the enemy will have to consider and respect if it does not want to commit suicide.

War could last decades

23. If, despite all this, the United States decides to engage in a direct war against Iran (with or without NATO support), it would be embarking on a war of attrition that could last several decades. To this must be added the various conflict scenarios it is currently involved in across the globe.
24. In Arab countries where there are U.S. military bases and interests, there are millions of Shiite Muslims who have accepted Iran’s leadership and the guidance of its leader. They are trained, organized and armed, waiting for orders to join a regional conflict should the United States escalate the war to that level.
25. On the other hand, it remains to be seen how far the United States is willing to risk its interests and whether it has the capacity to deal with the situation that would arise in the event of a global economic recession, which Washington would have generated and promoted. Although U.S. hegemony has always acted in terms of political irrationality and imperialism cannot be trusted “even a little bit,” as Commander Ernesto Che Guevara said, I am not so sure that Washington wants to declare war on Iran, among other things because there is no consensus among the elites or public opinion in the United States to do so.
26. Washington must consider that if its war in Vietnam lasted ten years and was the worst military defeat in U.S. history, and Afghanistan in 20 years transformed it into a giant with feet of clay that had to withdraw defeated and humiliated, a war with Iran could mean the definitive end of its imperial power. In the meantime, the Russians could reach Berlin, the Chinese could take over Taiwan, and the Africans could definitively destroy Europe’s neocolonial power on that continent. If that happens, the post-World War II era and the system that emerged from it will be gone forever.

sergioro07.blogspot.com