By eliminating Iran’s strategic core, the US and Israel risk a regional 'unknown' as internal dissent and global energy shocks threaten to derail the offensive
Israel continues to kill key Iranian leaders. The latest to be eliminated through precision air strikes on March 17 are Ali Larijani and Gholamreza Soleimani. The latter was the chief of the Basij force, which is part of the country’s internal security apparatus. It controls domestic dissent and uses violence against protestors and rioters. Soleimani was therefore an important figure in Iran's security structure.
Ali Larijani's death
Far more so was Larijani. In his long career of service to the Islamic Republic, Larijani held a large number of senior positions with eminence. These ranged from security to defence to media handling. His forte was the security sphere.
Also read: As ‘friends’ trump Donald on Hormuz, is the bully all alone now? | AI With Sanket
He had been the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council since last August; he had also held this office earlier in 2005-07. During his last office, he was vastly influential in Iran’s political life in the security dimension, including the country’s nuclear programme.
Larijani was especially important in this area after the elimination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the decapitating strike by the US against Iran’s top leadership on February 28. He was close to the former Supreme Leader and no doubt would have had a role in the ‘election’ of Mojtaba Khamenei as his father’s successor.
What is worrying in this scenario is that if the US and Israel succeed in securing the collapse of the Iranian system, then forces of instability in that country may be unleashed with very dangerous consequences for the region.
These details about Larijani have been given since he was killed because of his critical role in Iran’s current leadership. Obviously, Israel and the US are killing Iran’s top leadership as part of their strategic plans in the current military conflict.
The objective cannot but be to demoralise the Iranian apparatus to such an extent that it thinks of giving up the struggle. As of now, there is no indication that it is willing to do so. The places of the dead leaders have been filled by the Iranian system quickly.
Also read: Europe’s snub to Trump is a moral victory for Iran
Another reason for these killings is giving hope to those in Iran who are against the current system, so that they could rise in protest and ask for an end to the system and the war.
Eliminating top leaders without declaring formal war
The killing of the top leaders of a country without a formal declaration of war is against international law. While this aspect is important, many countries engaged in a conflict against another do not target their leaders because this can have a destabilising impact on the country concerned.
Such destabilisation can have unknown and undesirable consequences. The days of killing a leader in a battle and paving the way to victory and takeover of the country are largely buried in the pages of history. Hence, the wisdom of the American and Israeli strategy of decapitating strikes and the elimination of senior leaders is questionable.
Immediately after Larijani’s killing, the Iranian forces launched missile- and drone strikes against targets in Israel and in the Gulf countries. While President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may take satisfaction at Larijani’s killing, the former is clearly very upset by the refusal of US allies to send naval ships to the Strait of Hormuz.
Joe Kent's resignation
He has publicly expressed disappointment with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and also questioned the need for NATO. He would also be embarrassed by the resignation of senior US intelligence official Joe Kent, though he has shrugged it off.
Also read: Trump may claim victory, but will Iran stop fighting?
Kent, who held the critical position of director of the National Counterterrorism Centre, said in a letter to Trump, which he posted on X, “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby”.
He went on to mention how Trump was deceived into going to war. Kent added, “Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran. This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory”.
for India, the conflict is having a major and substantial economic impact on account of the disruption in energy and also trade flows. It can be anticipated that for some time, at least, it will lead to a reduction in the lure of investing in the Gulf countries.
From the available evidence, it seems that Kent is correct. He has pleaded with Trump to reverse course. There is nothing to indicate that he is willing to do that. At present, it seems that he is relying on Iran accepting US terms because of exhaustion. He feels that the continuous bombing will lead to the Iranian system of 'Vilayet-e Faqih' or the "guardianship of the Islamist jurist" (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei introduced the system in which the supreme cleric is the final authority in spiritual and also temporal affairs) coming apart at the seams. He is also having the Iranian coast massively bombed to open up the Strait of Hormuz.
Worse if Iran's system collapses
It cannot be predicted with certainty how this situation will develop. What is worrying in this scenario is that if the US and Israel succeed in securing the collapse of the Iranian system, then forces of instability in that country may be unleashed with very dangerous consequences for the region.
Also read: Are India’s ties with Israel based on hype rather than reality?
Iran’s strategy is to keep up pressure on the US by above all maintaining the disruption in hydrocarbon flows through the Strait of Hormuz. As this impacts 20 per cent of the oil market, the disruption is having major consequences, threatening a global economic slowdown. This will impact the US, too, though it is self-sufficient in the hydrocarbons sector.
Can Trump afford fuel price rise in midterm year?
Can the Trump administration afford a sustained price rise at the petrol pumps in an election year? The conventional wisdom is that it cannot.
Besides this factor, there is also the second-tier Iranian strategy of causing problems for oil production and refining in the Gulf countries. And the third tier: if matters become supremely negative for Iran, it would target Gulf populations and cause great regional and also global panic.
The possibility of the conflict going on for months, even at a low level, cannot be overlooked. This may be so despite the three belligerents not wanting it to go on.
Also read: China-bound Russian oil tanker diverts to India as imports rise post US waiver
All three may find it difficult to extricate themselves from a long war. Whatever the level of hostilities, their impact on the production and flow of hydrocarbons will be great. That in turn will have a negative impact on the world economy. The chances of such a scenario may be remote, but all wars are subject to the law of unknown consequences.
Naturally, for India, the conflict is having a major and substantial economic impact on account of the disruption in energy and also trade flows. It can be anticipated that for some time, at least, it will lead to a reduction in the lure of investing in the Gulf countries. It is therefore in India’s interest that the conflict ends soonest.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
