No matter the ultimate denouement of the war of aggression on Iran, the country has won the war morally, politically, and ethically. 

Primarily, by defeating the primary war aims of the United States and Israel, that is, ‘regime change’. This warrants elaboration. 

War is not about battlefield deaths, destruction of victuals, munitions, and so on. These are mere technical elements of war and war making. Essentially, though reductively, war is about sapping the will and morale of the adversary, who then capitulates. 

Has the American-Israeli war of aggression achieved this? 

Consider this: The legitimate government of Iran is standing. It may be materially somewhat weakened, but it stands and has ably performed all the functions of government, from running tap water to paying salaries on time and clearing war debris, and so on.

The primary war aim of regime change stands defeated. But that is only one prong, albeit a major one, of the saga. 

In the strategic and general calculus of those who initiated and enabled this war of aggression, it was held that Iran would fold and crumble the moment it was attacked. Grist to the mill for this assertion lay in the assumption that Iran’s government and power structure were riven with factionalism, and that there were rival claimants in Iran’s military and national security apparatus who would either defect or lay low during the war. 

Iran’s ‘Service Fee’ Plan for Hormuz to Reshape Maritime Order

Iran Warns No Port Safe Amid US Naval Blockade Move

Above all, the major assumption was that disaffected Iranians would come out on the streets, or that there would be fissiparous tendencies in Iran’s various regions with different ethnic makeups. 

None of these scenarios came to pass. 

On the contrary, Iranians of all stripes, colours, and beliefs rallied around their government and came out on the streets in support. The country’s military structure held its own and remained a cohesive fighting unit.

Iranians resisted ably and fought an asymmetric war in which time, surprise, and raising the costs of war were central. Key was, and remains, the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran restricted to create ripple effects and pressure points across the region and even the world. 

Ironically, and even somewhat strikingly, American war aims have whittled down to contesting control over, or using, the Hormuz Strait as a choke point.

But, it appears, sometime during the course of the war, both America and Israel realized that the war was unwinnable in the terms they had initially set. This is perhaps best reflected in the nature, form, and pattern of their bombing and strafing campaigns. 

The targets shifted from the decapitation of Iranian leadership to universities, hospitals, major roads and buildings, and other assorted critical infrastructure. The obvious premise of these attacks appears to be to hobble Iran’s economy, make reconstruction difficult, and thereby complicate post-war governance of the country. 

This appears to rest on an assumption: to frazzle the war-induced unity of Iranians and create splits between the affected people of Iran and their legitimate government.

But now, that war has been rendered infructuous by the able resistance of Iranians, it appears that, despite public posturing by Donald Trump, America is seeking a lasting, or even a permanent, cessation of hostilities with Iran. 

The reasons primarily accrue from Iran’s able resistance, the pivotal aspect of which has been to raise the costs of war. 

The result has been the fraying of the regional security architecture that America, along with its Gulf allies, had built over decades. It has also caused lasting economic damage to the Gulf monarchies that had positioned themselves as oases of calm and peace, a ‘perfect habitat’ for capital and investment. 

Other themes include high gasoline and fertilizer prices, the risk premia for shipping, and the overall uncertainty and risk that pose a clear and present danger to the global and regional economy. 

Add all these up, and what you have is an imminent global recession. 

With mid-term elections looming in the US and Donald Trump’s approval ratings plummeting, the only possible way out for America is the conversion of the 14-day ceasefire into a permanent cessation of hostilities.

In a loose sense, then, almost all cards lie with Iran. It should play them well, but what would this entail in practice? 

While the real and actual decisions lie with Iran’s strategists and its military and political classes, they must do what serves both the long-term interests of Tehran and the broader welfare of all Iranians. 

By way of suggestion, however, Iran must stay cool and calm, as it has been till now, without resorting to overreactions, and overplaying of the proverbial hand. In specific terms, this could mean crafting conditions in a way that redounds to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

One, Iran must seek reparations for the damage caused by the war. Two, sanctions relief. Three, a permanent cessation of hostilities against the country, guaranteed by the US president. This guarantee should cut across all future US administrations. 

To make it foolproof, it could be underwritten by a troika of world powers that includes Russia and China. This is the broad outline. 

What Iran chooses to do with its nuclear program is absolutely its own choice and preference.

In terms of the putative and “new” regional security architecture, even though this may sound counterintuitive, Iran can reach out to the Gulf states. Their hopes of a superpower patron have been belied. And, given the fiasco into which the war of aggression degenerated, America may be considering a form of offshore balancing in the region. 

Iran can, in the terms of negotiations and the frame of reference for these, assuage the fears of Gulf Arabs. But this cannot and must not be a mere abstract goodwill gesture. 

A robust quid pro quo, in the form of financial assistance for post-war reconstruction, must be sought.

Besides alleviating financial stress, post-war reconstruction can provide some relief to frictional and structural unemployment in Iran and have spillover, economy-wide benefits. 

All in all, to repeat, Iran holds the aces. It must neither overplay these nor overreact. 

Another bold and beautiful chapter in the admirable civilizational and revolutionary history of Iran is about to be opened. Viva Iran!

© Kashmir Observer