There’s now a war to end the Gulf War III between the U.S and Israel against Iran. The debate has gradually shifted from the propriety of the war, which most Liberal Left in Europe and U.S condemned, to the exit strategy and, indeed, ending it immediately to save the looming economic meltdown in most parts of the world, especially given Iran’s choke-hold on the Strait of Hormuz, which has crippled oil shipping.
The looming specter of economic collapse, primarily due to oil shortages, compounds the pressure on policymakers to find a face-saving way to withdraw. However, premature disengagement not only endangers the strategic interests of both the United States and Israel, and all U.S allies int region and also risks destabilizing the Middle East further.
Most people talking in the public space are simply ignorant of the issues and driven by fear. What will happen if the war continues for three months? Oil price may reach $200 per barrel, pump price in U.S may reach $20-25 per gallon, inflation may double. But people will still survive. They have always.
Man Must Survive
In 1973 oil price rose of $4 to $18, during Arab oil embargo on the West, they survived. In 1981-86 during Iranian- Iraqi war, oil moved from $16 to $42 per barrel. During Gulf war 1 over Iraq invasion of Kuwait, oil moved to $80 per barrel, similarly in Gulf war 2. Then COVID. In all these, people survived. Why should this be different if the war goes on longer? Iran should be destroyed if it insists on having it its own way.
No country or person should be above the community. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a bad influence and should be removed as an arching tooth. Fear is the refuge of the coward. Liberal West are so indulged they have lost touch with reality. They think they are they world over-fed on debauchery. No, they are not: two third of the world live just above poverty line, the other one-third below. If Europe and America can’t endure the war, too bad, but they must prepare for a WW III from Iran soon than later at a greater cost. Go and read history.
The WW II could have been stopped in 1939 or 40, by challenging Hitler. But nobody did anything. In the end 50 million lives, including 6 million Jews were lost, and Germany completely destroyed. Either you take a small pain now or pay with a bigger pain later. Nigeria is a global classic example. Look at the number of lives lost daily for a country not at war? Even Ukraine doesn’t become close, because we rejected small inconvenience to stop it. Now, Nigeria will go down to end it.
Before considering an exit, it is imperative that the West re-evaluates its objectives and strengthens its commitment to a strategy that ensures long-term regional stability and the degradation of Iran’s military capabilities.
Objective Before Exit
The Iranian regime, characterized by its oppressive governance and antagonistic foreign policies, has historically viewed military strength as an avenue for promoting its ideological ambitions. Its proxies across the region, from Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, to various militias in Iraq, illustrate Iran’s reach and willingness to use force to pursue its interests.
The notion that a swift withdrawal could lead to peace or the normalization of Iran’s behavior is a naïve underestimation of the regime’s proclivity for aggression. Without a clear strategy aimed at crippling Iran’s military capabilities, a hasty exit could leave the regime emboldened and capable of escalating its threats against Israel and other adversaries.
Moreover, the narrative that prioritizes economic concerns over national security presents a dangerous paradox. In the past, appeasement and withdrawal have often emboldened adversaries, leading to worse conflicts down the line. History teaches us that stability in the region cannot be purchased at the cost of damaging strategic partnerships. The consequences of weakened deterrence against Iran would reverberate throughout the Middle East, emboldening other malign actors, such Turkey, and destabilizing cooperative efforts among regional allies.
A comprehensive exit strategy should focus on a dual framework of degrading military capabilities while simultaneously fostering an environment conducive to negotiation. This entails increasing support for regional allies to counterbalance Iran’s influence effectively.
Removing Effectively Iran’s Threat
By strengthening the military and economic resilience of Israel and Sunni Arab states, the West can create a more favorable environment for dialogue. This approach would not only threaten the stability of Iran’s military ambitions but also incentivize it to engage constructively with the international community.
Western leaders must also recognize the importance of securing commitments from Iran that ensure its future behavior aligns with the security needs of Israel and the broader region. This would require robust diplomatic engagements that leverage military readiness and economic measures to hold Iran accountable. Only through a unified and unwavering stance can the international community compel the Iranian regime to reconsider its calculations and respect the sovereignty of its neighbors.