Why the war with Iran became a defeat for US and its allies and where Trump miscalculated
A two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran has been agreed, but much remains unclear.
The good news is that many of the pressures that brought about the ceasefire remain in place. None of the combatants’ interests would be served by the deployment of US ground forces, attacks on Iran’s civilian infrastructure, or the destruction of neighboring Gulf countries’ water-treatment facilities, oil refineries, or data centers.
But it does suggest that a return to full-scale war, while possible, is not inevitable
Read more about the consequences of the war with Iran in the column by Centerview Partners senior adviser Richard Haass: War that didn’t go according to plan: who won and who lost in US-Iran conflict.
The author stresses that the big winner is Russia. Its economy has benefited significantly from rising energy prices. US relaxation of sanctions on Russian oil added to the windfall and could well outlast the return of energy prices to pre-war levels. The Kremlin also gained from America’s use of weapons that could have gone to Ukraine and are not easily replaced, and the deterioration in America’s relationship with Europe has further weakened NATO, a long-standing goal of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"China has also come out a winner. It benefits from a renewed US focus on the Middle East, which translates into reduced US forces and firepower in the Indo-Pacific, meaning that fewer weapons would be available for any Taiwan contingency," Richard Haass writes.
He adds that China could emerge as a sought-after partner in the region.
According to the Centerview Partners adviser, Iran gained from the war. It demonstrated a capacity to stand up successfully to the US and absorb punishment while still being able to hurt others and exert regional influence. Iran is also likely to play a significant, if not exclusive, role in the operation of the Strait of Hormuz going forward, which will give it leverage and possibly revenue. It may well retain elements of its nuclear program. For the foreseeable future, the regime appears secure.
The author then turns to those who ended up in a worse position as a result of the war.
First of all, the conflict was clearly bad for US-European relations and Taiwan, as well as for Ukraine, because of Russia’s gains.
A more aggressive Iran has exposed the vulnerabilities of the Arab states (Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman). Now they must live under Iran’s shadow and face the possibility of renewed conflict, putting the region’s economic model – built on stability, foreign investment, and tourism – at risk.
"The other principal loser of the war is not a country but a population: the Iranian people. The regime, having already killed tens of thousands of civilians before the war began, is now more entrenched than ever, with arguably more hardline leaders. None of this bodes well for Iranians’ economic prospects or freedom," the author adds.
He notes that the war also exposed America’s inability to provide adequate defense for its allies in the region, weakening those relationships. America’s decision not to consult with many of its allies before attacking Iran has increased the perception that it is erratic and dismissive of others’ legitimate concerns.
The Centerview Partners senior adviser also recalls the cost of gasoline has shot up at home, and farmers are contending with a fertilizer shortage. All this suggests higher inflation and a slower economy are likely.
"Trump can and will continue to insist that the war was a great success, but the reality is different. Tactical successes on the battlefield and the impressive rescue of a pilot cannot disguise what is emerging as a strategic defeat," Richard Haass concludes.
The expert emphasizes that if the Iran war had been one of necessity – if America’s vital interests were in jeopardy and there was no alternative to the use of military force – the great cost to the US and its allies might be justified.