The war between the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran has passed a certain point. We are still in the fog of war, but some preliminary conclusions can still be drawn. This war is monstrous in its immorality, brutality, lack of norms and rules, real causes, and effective strategy for conducting and exiting the conflict. Moreover, this war has the potential to not only become a fully regional war but also lead to an escalation of the entire international system. Countries around the world are being given a vivid example of the complete absence of international law, norms, and rules of diplomacy. The negotiation process is becoming not only a vestige of a bygone era but also a cover for preparing an armed attack.
Wars can now be launched without declarations. Negotiations are no longer necessary. Ultimatums, warnings, and attempts to reach agreements and compromises are becoming the romanticized hallmarks of yesteryear. Moreover, national leaders are no longer untouchable targets for enemy armed forces. They can be killed without facing criminal liability or even international condemnation. International institutions and organizations like the United Nations are bystanders in the growing international and global tensions and conflicts.
Amid the war between the US, Israel, and Iran, the confrontation between Afghanistan and Pakistan has been overshadowed by the global agenda. However, regular clashes on the Pakistani-Afghan border, which Islamabad is already calling “open war,” testify to the depth of the crisis. The two sides have exchanged blows, and the long, continuous border has not become an obstacle to short, brutal military operations against each other.
A War That Leads to Chaos
The number of airstrikes, the concentration of US Navy and Air Force forces, and the deployment of military architecture in the Gulf monarchies and some other countries indicate the very serious intentions of the anti-Iranian coalition. However, the initial plans for regime change have proven untenable. Apparently, the operation was initially planned for lightning speed: a sudden and drastic elimination of the top leadership, aimed at disrupting the system. However, the American and Israeli military underestimated the functionality of the political system and the Iranian regime’s ability to cope in a crisis. Iran had been preparing for this conflict for a very long time, at least since the American invasion of Iraq, and was quite well prepared.
Over time, the American strategy has evolved (if one can even speak of a well-thought-out strategy). At this stage, the focus is on the permanent and systematic destruction of the foundations of Iranian statehood: military installations, police stations, border guard posts, municipalities, and administrative and government buildings. The goal is to inflict maximum possible damage on Iranian statehood by destroying as many important industrial facilities as possible. Launch pads, underground storage facilities, silos, and IRGC facilities are being targeted particularly carefully.
Iran’s overall strategy is also emerging: to hold out and survive, preserving the “rule of the theologian” political system. However, such active and systematic strikes against American military bases and infrastructure facilities in the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf were surprising. Here we see a significant transformation in Iranian strategy compared to the Twelve Day War. The decision is quite controversial but apparently forced. First, the Iranians believed that destroying or disabling at least part of the military infrastructure at American bases would reduce the level of security over Israeli skies. In fact, the lion’s share of drone and missile launches were directed against these military bases rather than Israel. The assumption was that after inflicting some damage and overloading the defense systems, Tehran would begin launching its latest and deadliest ballistic missiles at Israel.
Tehran succeeded in inflicting a significant blow on American military bases, thereby demonstrating their systemic vulnerability. A number of important, expensive, and difficult-to-replace military installations were destroyed. However, the security of Israeli airspace was not significantly affected by these actions. Of course, an attack on the wealthy Persian Gulf countries and the closure or threat of closure of the Strait of Hormuz should send everyone rushing to the White House with pleas to end the fighting, which would lead to an economic crisis. Arab lobbyists, of course, filled the hallways of both houses of Congress, begging the White House to end the conflict. The Iranian strategy also didn’t fully work. Tehran’s sanctions evasion is largely achieved thanks to certain wealthy Gulf countries. In fact, the Arab monarchies were the very gateway through which the Iranians had access to the global economy. Relations, it seems, will never be the same.
Thus, having failed to achieve regime change through the lightning-fast assassination of the IRGC leadership and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Washington has adopted a strategy that can be described as “crippling Iran.” That is, he is systematically destroying everything that could be considered important to Iran’s statehood. Perhaps this conflict, dubbed the “Ramadan War” in Iran and the “Purim War” by some Israeli observers, will not be the last. If Iran survives this war, it will approach the next one weakened militarily and technically and, perhaps, more isolated diplomatically.
At the same time, Iran’s strategic depth is phenomenal. The Shiite culture of sacrifice and, paradoxically, the desire for longing, mourning, and grief “for an unjust world,” the culture of Ashura, strengthen the political system. In such difficult conditions, the political system demonstrates its functionality and high manageability. The Iranians themselves have called their governance strategy “mosaic.” However, the most important factors not only for the system’s survival but also for its functioning as an actor in regional politics and a passive object of geopolitical processes are not only social factors. This also depends on the military economy and the simple availability of an appropriate arsenal of modern weapons. While the first, social, aspect is unquestionable, the second, military-technical, is still a mystery hidden in Iranian caves and casemates.
The Danger of Chaos on the Afghan-Pakistani Border
As I said, a war between the United States and Israel, with some support from their allies, against the Islamic Republic of Iran will make the world harsher and more chaotic, without rules or diplomacy. Countries will learn an important lesson in impunity and permissiveness and will begin to consider resolving their political and territorial problems through military force. A significant escalation is currently taking place on the Afghan-Pakistani border. Both sides report serious clashes, shelling of positions, and bombing of cities. There are civilian casualties. According to the New York Times, both sides are deliberately downplaying civilian and military casualties, but they are significant.
Afghanistan claimed to have conducted operations inside Pakistan, claiming to have captured a Pakistani military outpost and killed several soldiers. Pakistan, for its part, denied these claims. Islamabad accuses the Taliban in Afghanistan of harboring militants, including Pakistani Taliban fighters from the Tehreek-e-Taliban, who carry out attacks in Pakistan. The Afghan side denies these accusations and insists that it does not allow its territory to be used for actions against other states.
The latest outbreak of hostilities occurred in late February, when Afghanistan launched a cross-border offensive against Pakistan in retaliation for Pakistani airstrikes carried out on Afghan territory several days earlier. Kabul claimed that these strikes killed only civilians. The clashes disrupted a Qatar-brokered ceasefire reached last October after fighting that killed dozens of soldiers, civilians, and suspected militants.
The standoff between the two sides stems from at least two complex and deep-rooted issues, the resolution of which appears extremely difficult in the foreseeable future. The first concerns the activities of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). This radical organization has close ties to Afghanistan and, according to the Pakistani side, uses Afghan territory as a refuge, for planning operations, and for regrouping its forces. For many years, the TTP has waged an armed struggle against the Pakistani government, resulting in numerous casualties. Consequently, Islamabad insists that the Afghan Taliban stop providing safe haven to militants and take active measures to neutralize them. Afghan Taliban representatives, however, deny such accusations, stating that they provide no support to the TTP and do not allow it to use Afghan territory for operations against other states.
The second problem is deeper and more structural and concerns the very nature of relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan, or more specifically, the interaction between the Pakistani military leadership and the Taliban movement. Historically, Pakistan played a significant role in the movement’s development, serving as its ideological inspiration and one of its key patrons. The Taliban’s formation in 1994 occurred with the active support and participation of Pakistani military structures. In subsequent years, particularly during the US and NATO military campaign in Afghanistan, Islamabad continued to provide various forms of support to the Taliban and some other extremist groups, like the Haqqani Network. As a result, after their return to power in 2021, Pakistani strategists are counting on a special relationship with the new Afghan leadership, one that entails influence and political weight in decision-making. However, the Taliban themselves, having become the ruling force in the country, are striving to build a more independent and sovereign foreign and domestic policy, which gradually leads to a divergence of expectations and interests between the parties. Thus, Pakistan is now fighting a radical group it itself created, financed, and patronized.
Thus, the situation on the southern borders of the Eurasian continent is far from stable. Unfortunately, it appears these conflicts will not end anytime soon.
