Iran’s acts of war should not go unanswered
Last week’s attacks against Aramco oil facilities were not primarily directed against Saudi Arabia — they represented an act of aggression against the civilized world and its economic lifeblood. Earlier this year, Iran attacked oil tankers owned by neutral states like Norway and Japan. Tehran’s threats to shut down the Strait of Hormuz are likewise calculated to demonstrate its ability to sabotage global energy supplies. China, Russia and the Europeans complacently view the current escalation as Donald Trump’s problem. The US administration’s flawed containment strategy is indeed a factor; yet aggressive Iranian expansionism, its sponsorship of paramilitary proxies and its acts of terrorism all precede Trump. The dramatic escalation of these activities largely arises from the shortcomings of the 2015 nuclear deal, which drastically increased the funds Tehran had available for militancy and was secured at the cost of turning a blind eye to Iran’s regional machinations. Blaming Trump feels therapeutic but does not make us safer. Iranian militancy is the world’s problem. We either grab the bull by the horns or await Tehran’s next attempt to torpedo the global economy.
There was never a prospect of the US’ “maximum pressure” strategy succeeding without support from pivotal UN Security Council members, notably Russia and
China, which reliably veto measures against Tehran. States like China and India have likewise continued dealing with Iran, despite being disproportionately impacted by threats to the Saudi oil supply. European appeasers, meanwhile, facilitated Tehran’s circumvention of sanctions while stubbornly ignoring its proxy hordes. Russia has, for a long time, abetted Iran’s paramilitary strategy in Syria.
Although unprovoked strikes against the economic infrastructure of a neighboring state are, by definition, acts of aggression, where are the tangible responses from around the world? Even symbolic actions, such as the withdrawal of ambassadors. Statements of “regret” and “condemnation” are worse than useless because they are taken as an excuse for inaction. Iran’s leaders must be jubilantly incredulous that they are getting away scot-free.
The post-Second World War international institutions were designed to protect the sovereignty and integrity of member states, rendering cross-border acts of aggression unthinkable. Saddam Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait saw an almost unanimous global response, and even Vladimir Putin found himself summarily expelled from the G8 over Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.
When there is a failure to multilaterally implement punitive measures, aggressor nations are effectively rewarded for their actions and other rogue states seize the opportunity to follow suit. The subversion of vigorously enforced and universally respected international norms leaves us with the law of the jungle, inflicting a devastating cost on our globalized, interdependent world.
Trump is getting cold feet about his Iran strategy at the worst possible moment, while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo mumbles incomprehensibly about pursuing a “peaceful solution.” Civilized negotiations and peaceful solutions are only possible when engaging with honest and sincere interlocutors who themselves desire peace. The ayatollahs of Tehran do not fulfill these criteria.
If new sanctions are the only items in Trump’s presidential toolbox that he is willing to use, this collective abdication of responsibility invites further Iranian escalations. Simply sending more US forces to the region plays no role in hindering drone attacks, other than giving Qassem Soleimani additional targets to fire at. Nobody wants war. Yet Iran’s expansionist foreign policy is predicated on what it can get away with: Relatively inconsequential attacks on tankers and drones this summer rapidly escalated to targeting infrastructure responsible for a significant percentage of global oil production.
Just as Barack Obama discovered when Bashar Assad stomped all over his chemical weapons “red lines,” deterrence only functions when it is backed up by credible consequences. Trump’s obvious allergy to Middle Eastern military commitments is the equivalent of wading into a gunfight with both hands tied behind one’s back.
Trump talks about forcing Saudi Arabia to pay, yet this isn’t Riyadh’s confrontation. Gulf states are paying the price for the international failure to contain Iran, and are demonstrating admirable restraint in the face of unprovoked aggression. The relentless targeting of oil tankers and production facilities could trigger an environmental catastrophe, either in the shallow Gulf waters or for civilians and the natural environment around targeted sites. Iran’s principal PR weapon, Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, smilingly lies, lies and lies again to the international media, threatening “all-out war” and blustering about Iran’s readiness to fight “to the last American soldier.” The ayatollahs lash out because they are cornered, desperate and have little to lose. Iran should not be treated as a supreme regional powerhouse. It is a minuscule neighborhood irritant that, through successive botched efforts at appeasement, has been allowed to mutate into a global menace.
Just as the European leaders of the 1930s appeased their way into a global confrontation with Nazi Germany, a hugely destructive war can today only be avoided by radically cutting Iran’s war making capacities down to size — its missile bases, military hardware, paramilitary proxies and perhaps even its militarized nuclear installations. Some commentators worry that a robust response could trigger conflict. On the contrary, a carefully calibrated, multilateral response may be the only means of preventing all-out war.
Mustering a determined and coherent international response requires significant political will; yet the failure to protect the integrity of the international system brings with it the ruinous costs of contagious instability and threats to energy security. Trump must overcome his aversion to multilateralism, while other world leaders must overcome their aversion to Trump if the threat of Iranian aggression is to be neutralized. NATO, the EU, the Arab League and other global bodies must come together to delineate responsible solutions to a shared threat. The upcoming UN General Assembly could be the perfect moment for member states to speak with one voice. Contemporary diplomacy is often wrongly treated as a zero-sum game; yet Russia, Asia and Europe are equally menaced by the prospect of unrestrained rogue states willing to use terrorism and militancy to undermine global stability. The entire world’s economy is endangered by strikes against oil installations and supply routes.
If we fail to protect the territorial integrity of just one peace-loving UN member state today, tomorrow we will find our own nations under threat as the system of international law and collective security disintegrates.