What is going on in IRAQ…IRAN?

 What is going on in IRAQ…IRAN?

In the early hours of Sunday morning (BST), US President Donald Trump announced to the world on social media that a series of US bomber strikes (namely B-2 bombers with the capacity to drop ‘bunker buster’ bombs that are capable of penetrating the underground Uranium enrichment site of Fordow) had taken place on three ‘key’ sites in Iran. 

This is perhaps the defining moment of Trump's turbulent yet still youthful premiership. 

Iran is  currently under the regime commanded by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (aged 86). The regime that operates in Iran is unquestionably unpopular with the Iranian populus as indicated in polls which suggest that up to 80% of people would support the overthrow of the regime though these are hard to verify given the strictly regulated nature of journalism in Iran.

The Revolutionary Guard (founded in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution of 1978) operate the oppressive regime that is notorious for its lack of rights for certain (often vulnerable) groups, its close ties to designated terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthi rebels in Yemen and its unfiltered hatred for the ‘western’ world (as led by the US and its fading circles of soft power). In his Times article Christopher De Bellaigue remarked on the cold stare of Khamenei meeting his gaze as the Ayatollah chanted “Death to America”. Perhaps not the best person to negotiate with.

Most of the world unilaterally recognises the Iranian regime as a threat and that the government's pursuit of nuclear weaponry (as indicated by the refinement of Uranium beyond a purity of 3.72% to 60% which is nigh on weapons grade) as a dangerous development in the history of the Middle-East. 

However, the fact of the matter remains, Benjamin Netanyahu (PM of Israel) has stated that Iran has been close to producing nuclear weapons for the past 20 years, often using bold yet misleading graphics to demonstrate the ‘imminent threat’ posed by this such as in his 2015 address at the UN headquarters in New York. Lest we forget Israel has access to nuclear weapons as recognised by DNSR (Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator) though Israel itself does not acknowledge this. Not exactly the transparency we should expect among our ‘allies’.

The US strikes are the latest development in the story of western interventionism which has dominated the post - world war landscape. What are we to think of this direct military action? 

The strikes are certainly a reason to sleep a little less easily if we consider the precedent that President Trump is setting through them. Through his adoption of a first strike policy, the US has transgressed international law - fact. What have the world's leaders come out to say about this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Well, what can they say? The threat of trade tariffs looms for those who dare to defy the dealing Don. Macron, Mertz, Starmer. Their hands are tied; they walk a thin thread between flattery and being ‘fired’.

The strikes on Sunday have given justification to the more malign actors on the global stage. How can this form of first strike interventionism be legally justified over Putin marching on Kyiv or Xi thinking about taking Taiwan?

The international agreements that once governed such actions are gone - blasted away with bunker busters. We have been cast into a world of mafioso politik, where an increasingly few number make the calls and the rest of us must sit on the sidelines, confined to backbench squads. 

What is to stop lone individuals from taking the shots? Who will hold to account the ‘strongmen’ of this world if the global landscape is one of anarchy and lawlessness? That is the grim precedent that this has set. 

What of our international organizations?

What of NATO if it’s reduced to a paralysed parade of minor-players, plodding along to Trump's thump?

What of the UN if it’s reduced to a US council of cronies, second rate to the West Wing, commanded from the Oval office?

If these strikes have confirmed anything amid the floods of speculation they have sparked it is that the age of agreement and the international rule of law are over. We are cast into an uncertain future. 

So what next? 

Iran could retaliate. Block the strait of Hormuz. Block roughly 20% of the world's oil supply. Bolster their terrorist operations in foreign nations. Build a bomb faster. Attack the 30,000 US soldiers stationed in the Middle East with militias. Sue for unconditional surrender. 

For Khamenei, surrender is not an option. His regime would crumble under the weight of his inaction. If he retaliates with anything other than continued strikes on Israel and targets US positions in the region, war appears frightfully certain. If the strait is blocked. The people of Iran who rely on the economic security of oil exports will struggle. The world's oil supply will struggle. There are few optimal outcomes. 

This is a moment of teetering fractiousness. Echoes of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 ring in the background. This is a consequential moment in history. When the actions of world leaders in the weeks to come are confined to the future texts of history, let us hope they are not followed by death tolls and casualty lists. 

Michal Davis L6G (Editor)

All opinions expressed in this article are that of its writer and not that of Watford Grammar School for Boys or the Looking Glass as a whole.