On Wednesday, April 14 in Anna Tulvin Schlecter Auditorium , the Clarke Forum hosted faculty to speak and answer questions on the geopolitical consequences of the Iran War.
The Iran War began with attacks on Tehran from the US and Israel with allies pushing towards hegemonic influence in the region. Professor David Commins of the History and Middle East Studies departments noted the February 28 attack may have emerged from a February 11 White House briefing by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s own government, and the Likud party in Israel, have a longstanding strategic objective of territorial control, even seeking land past the 1967 Israeli borders and into Lebanon.
Professor Russel Bova of Political Science and International Studies opened the talk with the potential effects of the war upon China, Russia and the US. For China and Russia, benefits may well outweigh the costs of the conflict, but for the US it is a different story. While US tactical operations are advanced militarily, tactical successes do not achieve political objectives. Such objectives were unclear for the US on February 28, and remain undefined.
The Trump administration sought regime change in Iran, which failed. Stopping Iranian nuclear power was also a motive, but actual restrictions on Iranian nuclear development is doubtful. Nuclear proliferation remains a threat to global peace and security. The US has continuously shifted its approach in combatting Iran’s nuclear capacity. Lacking defined strategy to subdue the threat of nuclear violence means the threat will remain.
Bova listed the consequences of the war like closing the Strait of Hormuz, the only sea route for oil and gas from the Persian Gulf to global markets. Also noted was the global uptick in oil prices, exacerbating frayed ties between the US and NATO allies. The US is now framed as a ‘rogue superpower,’ affecting US dominance over geopolitics and its stability as a country.
Bova quoted Carl Von Clausewitz, a Prussian officer and military theorist, claiming “if the enemy is to be coursed you must put him in a situation even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make.” The question still lingers whether Iran has been made uncomfortable enough to sacrifice any future objectives at this point. Even as Iran oil exports plummet, bringing on devaluation and hyperinflation, Iran survived a steep collapse of oil exports in 2020 and could do so again. In fact, Iran could hold strong for about six months through printing money and floating oil storage.
David Commins spoke on the balance of power in the Gulf from the 1800s, when endemic naval warfare ended with British intervention. The UK and US remain dominant in the region.Today, America’s ‘dual containment’ strategy has protected Gulf interests from neighboring Iraq and Iran. The Obama-era Joint-Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement aided confidence in an end to nuclear expansion.
With the JCPOA reversed and present aggression from the Trump administration, the panel assumed that if the Iranian government survives the war, they are likely to remain hostile. The Gulf will also likely stay US-aligned for security’s sake despite several hits from Iran. The Iranian government faces strain, with the son of the former Ayatollah killed February 28, out of the public eye and many speculate he cannot truly direct the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Core (IRGC).
Professor Mireille Rebeiz of Middle East Studies, French and Francophone Studies, and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, has family in Lebanon now facing attacks from Israel. She explained that Lebanon has long been affected by Israeli military objectives. From the Israeli invasion in 1982 resulting in over 20,000 dead, to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, an atrocity also by Israeli forces. Lebanese politics related to Iran largely concern Hezbollah. Here Rebeiz noted that terrorism isn’t born of nothing, but often a product of severe violations of a people’s rights.
Hezbollah entered the political sphere officially in 1992 as a proxy group funded by Iran. Rebeiz separates the views of Lebanese people and the workings of Hezbollah, as support for the party wavered since the Israeli occupation left in 2000. Hezbollah’s violence has continued and often resulted in militant action decried by Lebanese factions, Christian, Sunni, and Shia alike. Since 2000, Israel has continued committing war crimes in southern Lebanon, so many Lebanese remain stuck between these forces.
On Tuesday, February 13, Israel-Lebanon negotiations were held, with Israel demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah. The catch is the expected permission for Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, where interest lies in the Nitany River, a vital resource in the region. Iran’s strong anti-Israel sentiment seems to encourage the risk of Iranian-occupied Lebanon if stalled negotiations show no clear direction.
Returning to the broad scale geopolitical questions, the panelists concurred that the entire affair is terrible for Ukrainian sovereignty and security. Even the rise in oil prices has benefitted the Russian state budget and therefore their military power.
With changing media landscapes during the war, more than one conflict is being left behind. Ukraine’s coverage dropped as the Genocide in Gaza was condemned by the United Nations general assembly, Amnesty international, the International Court of Jutsice and Israeli human rights group B’tselem. The plight of Palestinians, with limited coverage in the West where Israeli allies lie, was also again clouded with the start of the Iran war.
One minor but potentially positive effect of Israel’s current geopolitical directive, as mentioned by Commins, is that more of the Western public may finally realize the idea of a two-state solution in Israel and Occupied Palestine is dead. This possibility has been buried by the Likud party, Netanyahu’s party, for over thirty years now. But finally, Israel’s extreme military action and political rhetoric stretches into other countries with little regard for wartime or humanitarian law, at the same time as co-occurring atrocities in Palestine.
A tangential and heated moment broke at the panel when Bova said he disagreed with Rebeiz’s use of the word genocide (and by association Commins, who also used the UN Convention term).
Bova did agree that war crimes are occurring at a dangerous rate in occupied territories,mentioning the genocide in Rwanda, as well as the Holocaust. All that was said about Gaza, after stating he was aware of the UN ruling on the matter, was that Bova was “not sure that’s the right word to be using in this case.”
Rebeiz calmly and respectfully rejected this opinion first by referencing a former college speaker, Law Professor Gabor Rona. Rona, whose parents are Holocaust survivors, gave a talk on how the Genocide Convention was born and evolved. Professor Rona’s talk warned us that we do not need to wait for six million killed to recognize a genocide. Israeli politicians have intentionally dehumanized Palestinians and spoken of their intent to rid the state of Palestinians, a required proof for Convention criteria.
The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded “Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” The General Assembly passed a resolution for an “immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza,” immediate release of hostages, and immediate lift on aid restrictions. The US vetoed this resolution standing firmly beside Israel, geopolitical interest acting as an obstacle to human rights. B’tselem, Israeli human rights agency, also documented genocide in the territories.
The reason a debate still stands on the status of Gazan lives and oppression of the Palestinian people largely hinges on the dismissal of genocidal intent by the United States, a commanding voice in geopolitics partnered with Israel in establishing Middle Eastern hegemonic influence. This is exhibited now in the actions taken against Iran and in the direction of extended conflict.
