The war in Iran revolved around four major issues: Iran's nuclear capability; its control over the Strait of Hormuz; the weakening or removal of Iranian uranium enrichment facilities; and the status of war in Lebanon. As the war progressed, the USA' choice of how to deal with this war was narrowed down to three options: continue with the military attack; cut a deal; or maintain the status quo (naval blockade and sanctioning Iran). The US has ultimately chosen to execute the second option of cutting a deal with Iran, and it seems that the primary reason for this was the economic pain that the international economy was suffering. Based on this, I wish to ask and then answer two questions. One, is it right to assume that the weakening international economy has forced President Trump to make a deal with Iran? Two, can we say that it will not be the economic reality, and not the military one, that will largely determine the outcome of future wars?

It would be an oversimplification to argue that a weakening international economy alone forced Trump to make a deal with Iran. A more persuasive explanation is that economic pressures, strategic realities and domestic political considerations converged to make diplomacy the more attractive option. The most immediate economic concern was the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz through which roughly a fifth of the world's seaborne oil trade passes. Since coming to power, the Trump administration has repeatedly emphasised economic performance and domestic prosperity as key components of its policy, and a prolonged Middle Eastern conflict doesn't suit this. Trump's foreign policy has also suggested a........

© The Express Tribune