American strategy in Iran is wiser than it seems

The conventional wisdom regarding Washington’s intervention in Iran is pretty well established at this point. Trump, the megalomaniacal lunatic with an absurd combover, has initiated an unprovoked war of choice against Iran. By doing so, the silly orange man has committed himself to a calamitous unforced error which will eventually result in the US suffering a significant strategic defeat in the Middle East at the hands of the IRGC.

The Islamic Republic will survive and thrive, having inflicted a mortal wound upon an overbearing American Empire which will recoil, reeling into its death throes. Trump will get his long overdue comeuppance, and Rory Stewart will chuckle wryly whilst sipping a crisp glass of Moët.

With America’s military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan having occupied the geopolitical background of my formative years, it is hardly surprising to see this view solidify as the dominant narrative amongst my peers in the UK and Europe. Impressionable young minds of my cohort grew up being drip fed a narrative of Washington’s self-defeating imprudence in both campaigns, and, watching the  current episode unfolding in Iran, we are inclined to interpret it as a re-run of those previous screenings. This outlook regarding current proceedings in Iran is one of precious few topics which seems to unite both ends of the political spectrum, but is it correct? Let us examine.

Firstly, we must clearly identify the objective which Washington hopes to achieve by embarking upon its intervention. While few in the current administration have dared to speak its name, for those of us who follow Middle-Eastern affairs closely, Washington’s desired outcome is clear — regime change. Tehran, though beleaguered economically by sanctions and eclipsed militarily by American firepower, has always held in reserve the ability to inflict a devastating wound on the global economy by cutting off the supply of cheap energy which constitutes the lifeblood of economic activity. Iran’s ability to blockade the Strait of Hormuz has always weighed heavily on the minds of Western strategists. 

In January, the Iranian protest movement reached its climax when regime officials began shooting civilians dead in the street. This culmination of events in Iran coincided with their allies in Moscow being stretched thin in Ukraine, entering the fifth year of a dead-end conflict on their doorstep. Strategists in Washington saw this and decided to strike while the iron was hot, initiating their military buildup in the region by moving their aircraft carriers and material into position. Had the Americans observed the carnage of the protests in January and decided not to intervene, the Islamic Republic’s hegemony over Iran would have remained tenuous at best. There is no reason to suspect that the economic frustrations which pushed young Iranians onto the streets would have abated. In fact, the economic indicators give us every reason to suspect they would have worsened significantly. 

The Islamic Republic, from its inception, was always a cult of personality centred around the divine authority of its supreme leader. Whereas Ayatollah Khomeini evoked a near mythological status amongst his support base of impoverished rural Iranians, his successor Ali Khamenei never commanded such reverence. 

The assassination of Ali Khamenei on the 28th of February left everyone stunned. The reception amongst Iranians offered insight into the hyper-polarised nature of Iranian political thought. For regime loyalists, a public outpouring of grief consciously evoking the martyrdom of Imam Husayn at Karbala was deemed the only appropriate response. For those less loyal; an assortment of tasteless memes posted onto Elon’s twitter.

In the aftershock of Khamenei’s death, senior regime figures recognised that assuring continuity in the Office of the Supreme Leader was crucial to perpetuating the Islamic Republic. The replacement they settled upon was Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba. At the time of writing, the incumbent Supreme leader has not been seen in public, communicating with the populace only through statements attributed to him being read out by a spokesman for the regime. Mojtaba’s absence from the public eye has naturally led to rumours and speculation regarding his health, as well as severely undermining the status of a figurehead whose predecessors were regarded as God’s unquestionable representative on earth.

Subsequent actions from the US and Israeli air forces have only served to compound Tehran’s woes. Strikes on depots across Iran invalidated munitions stockpiles which have taken years of time and billions of dollars to accumulate. Tehran responded by immediately playing its ace card — blockading the Strait of Hormuz and thus cutting off the supply of cheap energy which is fundamental to the functioning of the global economy.

Unfortunately for Tehran, this strategy possesses limited efficacy. Washington has itself been a net exporter of crude oil and hydrocarbons since the shale fracking revolution of the 2010s unlocked huge reserves of oil and natural gas for the Americans to exploit from under their feet. Rather than crippling Washington as it intended, Iran’s actions in the Strait have instead seen the US establish itself as an emergency gas station for buyers on the global market willing to pay a premium.

America’s recent intervention has achieved a dual function of inflicting tremendous harm on the Iranian regime whilst also providing powerful dissuasion to strategists in Beijing

Following the failure of peace talks in Islamabad, Washington’s leading naval strategist Donald Trump has now announced a US blockade of Iranian ports around the strait. While this may appear as lunacy, there is in fact a method to the madness. Whereas Iran’s blockade of the Strait has permitted Tehran to choose which commercial vessels were permitted transit, an American blockade halts maritime traffic entirely. Whereas Iran could previously disrupt maritime traffic to the detriment of the wider global economy whilst maintaining its own exports, an American blockade now sees the regime cut off from the financial lifeline which kept it afloat.

Aside from the obvious headache this causes for Iran’s incumbent leadership, one may also assume these developments evoke considerable anxiety in China which imports the vast majority of its energy from the Persian Gulf. Looked at in this light, we can see how America’s recent intervention has achieved a dual function of inflicting tremendous harm on the Iranian regime whilst also providing powerful dissuasion to strategists in Beijing who may be weighing up the odds of a potential operation on Taiwan.

Perhaps the street smarts gained from dealing in New York real estate do indeed transfer onto the high seas.