-
-
-
Loading
Loading
AS the Gulf war rumbles on, even President Donald Trump’s allies, at home and abroad, worry about its erratic aims and timeline. Signals by American officials that it may end soon were nixed by news of new air attacks and troop arrivals. Mixed signals often aim to hassle the enemy in wars. So, war gurus instead look at the military, political and economic constraints of foes to gauge their plans.
The war started out aiming for regime change. But while president Nicolás Maduro’s gangster-like kidnapping resulted in a more pliant regime in Venezuela, the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran brought to the fore far more hard-line elements. The US and Israel (USrael) now think that a land war will take care of their key constraints. War-mongering American presidents start short wars covered by their current budgets but inevitably end up in longer ones that need new money that a saner Congress may not approve. The war’s hits on US market indices and Trump’s ratings are a lonely Iran’s best pals.
The new, humbler aims are to harm Iran’s military and economy to eliminate the threat to American interests forever and open the Strait of Hormuz. These aims may explain the mixed signals. Just a few days more of war and new troops may seek to achieve both aims. But how aligned are they with US constraints? The aim to hurt Iran has already shrunk as plans to hit its energy assets were eliminated after sane heads warned of huge Iranian hits on America’s ‘Abrahamic’ allies.
Now the aim is to mainly damage its military. They may even have a list of key targets to hit in a few days. But experts see few gains here. War has hurt Iran’s missile stocks and factories but it can still fight hard and rebuild key arsenal soon — within months perhaps and at the most two to three years. This may tempt USrael to deliver annual ‘haircuts’ via short wars.
Foes often prolong wars to gain an edge in talks.
But this may harm the Gulf economies forever. The aim to open the strait via land troops is dicey. The problem is not opening it but keeping it open. Iran’s intact arsenal and a fast rebound may result in a long war. So, the first aim has worsened matters for USrael, and the second has achieved few gains.
There is now talk of talks soon. The talk of us hosting talks is seen by many as an enhanced global status that gives an advantage over India. But real status comes slowly by ensuring economic heft, democracy and security via good strategy and hard work. The war’s end will help all but a mediating role carries risks and few additional gains, as with our key role in the 1971 US-China talks — and the lack of US help just months later in December. A vicious Israel may harm talks via all dirty means. A haughty US prefers mediators who just pass messages, and don’t ask it to compromise nor object if it attacks during talks or breaks an agreement later. Pakistan, Egypt and Turkiye must think hard about the impact. Our stretched rulers already face economic issues, internal and external trouble and volatile masses. So, we must choose our precise role wisely.Our rulers must also take clear action to ensure a break from a past where autocrats used the global/ American ties for domestic legitimacy and to crack down on democracy.
How talks go — if they are held — depends again on the constraints that the foes face given the war’s results. Foes often prolong wars to gain an edge in talks. If talks start with the strait shut, Iran will gain an edge. The trust gap is huge on both sides. In a realpolitik world, where an evil hegemon is the aggressor, clout helps med-iators more than just good ties. So, ideally, global titans like the European Union, China and Japan, all hurt by the war but with greater influence over the US, should lead discussions on key issues like Iran’s nuclear abilities, missiles, proxy aid and frozen assets and US bullying and sanctions.
The hard issues may be left for later. The focus should be on burning issues — a durable ceasefire and opening the strait. Iran rightly wants damages. But it may be hard for anyone to convince a haughty US to pay up, more so as it knows that if it just cuts its attacks, friendly states may get Iran to end the war and open the strait. But Iran, too, has some cover against future wars as it can close the strait again and can ask other rich states to aid its recovery in opening it or charge passing ships. In the end, talks may not result in big formal gains and realpolitik may shape the future.
The writer has a PhD degree in political economy from the University of California, Berkeley, and 25 years of grassroots to senior-level experience across 50 countries.
Published in Dawn, March 31st, 2026
if you want to get more information about this news then click on below link
More Detail