West Asia War Could Take A New Shape

In geopolitics, territory is a core priority, and a military approach based on the balance of power takes the lead. Therefore, a country’s foreign policy is highly dependent on the geopolitical aspects of global politics. Whereas in geoeconomics, the market phenomenon is a core priority, and corporates guided by economic needs takes precedence. Today, the global situation has become so fragile that it seems global politics has reverted to the pre-Westphalian world order, where territory and territorial expansion have become more important than the economy. According to Kautilya’s Mandal theory, it is very natural for geopolitics to take a driving seat rather than geoeconomics. Ever since geopolitics has taken the driving seat, globalisation has witnessed a sharp decline, leading to the decline of global economic integration and economic issues worldwide. Just because we live in a complex interdependent world, where security dilemmas and lack of trust become reasons for the balance of power, the participating actors are naturally indirectly connected with each other. When a conflict based on the Mandal theory (neighbours are natural enemies) emerges, it becomes very difficult for actors to establish peace through balancing. It happens only when an actor sacrifices geoeconomic aspects for the sake of geopolitics. Today, the entire conflict in West Asia is a matter of geopolitics, where geoeconomic relations have been sacrificed to a greater extent. In the wake of the US claiming to be possibly nearing an agreement with Iran, Israel struck the southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon. In response to Israel’s continuous defiance of the proposed ceasefire agreement, Iran has recently launched a massive ballistic missile strike in Israel, further widening the possibility of this war turning into a full-fledged regional war. It is hardly important whether the Iranian ballistic missiles were intercepted or not, the important thing is that Iran and Israel may enter into a direct exchange of missiles, which will decrease the possibility of peace being restored in West Asia. As President Trump continues to blame Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for attacking Lebanon at a time when the US was about to reach a deal with Iran, the upcoming mid-year election in the US may be forcing Trump to temporarily restore peace in the region, since the increasing food and energy prices in the US market may backfire on Trump’s electoral campaign strategy. Although the limited but strong retaliation by Iran has been said to be just a warning against Israel’s continuous attack on Lebanon, it can also be interpreted as Iran possibly looking for a peace agreement. Given domestic circumstances in the US, in fact, Trump is also possibly looking for a peace deal at least for a shorter period of time, but Israel’s possible fear of regional hegemony is not allowing it to stop until it becomes crystal clear that Israel is the real hegemon of West Asia. President Trump’s miscalculation of waging war against Iran has now become a serious headache for the US, as Netanyahu seems to have closed the exit door for the US in this scenario. It also seems that the joint attack of the US and Israel against Iran has now shifted from bilateral to trilateral, where all three parties are looking for their own personal advantages. While President Trump wants a temporary pause to this war, as the mid-year election in the US is around the corner, Israel wants Iran to completely abandon its nuclear enrichment programme, whereas Iran wants to maintain the status quo with no interference from any external power in its domestic affairs.Though this war is for regional hegemony between Iran and Israel, ever since the US entered this war, it has been fought directly between the US and Iran. Except for a few from the very beginning, there were hardly any direct exchanges of missiles between Iran and Israel. Immediately after the war started, the US was alone in fighting this war against Iran. However, the recent retaliatory ballistic attack by Iran on Israel has once again threatened regional stability, as Iran has warned that it will launch massive waves of ballistic missiles if Israel does not stop attacking Lebanon, which is a core demand of Iran in this ceasefire agreement. President Trump understands the gravity of Iran’s frustration, and that is the reason why Trump has asked Israel not to retaliate against Iran, as the peace deal is expected to materialise in the upcoming days or weeks.This war is about having greater control over West Asia. Therefore, if this war is to become a regional hegemon, entering into a deal for peace is a facade. As far as the history of American hegemony is concerned, this war may end only when Iran surrenders to the US or Israel, which is possibly never going to happen. Since the conditions put forward by the American peace proposal are indirectly about Iran surrendering to the US, the future of this war is uncertain. As Trump appealed to Israel not to retaliate, Israel has partially accepted Trump’s appeal and said that it will not retaliate against Iran but will continue to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is not acceptable to Iran. Even after this retaliatory attack by Iran, if Israel does not stop attacking Lebanon, this will possibly pave the way for the next phase of this war, provided that the Iranian proxy Houthi has also threatened to attack any Israeli ships passing through the Strait of Bab al-Mandab. Hence, in this context, it would not be wrong to assume that this war is expected to prevail for months or even years. (The views expressed are personal)This article is authored by Sanjay Turi, doctoral candidate, Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.