The two questions on the minds of all Middle East watchers at present are wearingly familiar ones, as set out above.
Whatever the longer-term causes, and in the Middle East start dates are always a matter of contention, we can say that the military strikes on Iran on February 28th by Israel and the United States began a new phase in contemporary regional history. At present, those of us in the UK remain unclear as to what the answer to the famous question of General Petraeus might be, whether it was asked, and whether the answer given in the US was the same as that given in Israel.
In the long history of Middle East crises, this one is not a short, sharp interlude, but likely to result in more re-drawing of world relationships than the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the impact of which is still very real around the region.
That Iran, post the 1979 revolution, had long been a threat to immediate neighbours and beyond, is clearly true. The handling of this threat had been varied, from the active containment of militias and proxies in neighbouring states, to diplomatic and economic pressures, of which the most evident was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed by nuclear powers and Iran in 2015 to curb what had been a covert nuclear programme.
These piecemeal efforts had been the preference of most dealing with Iran, who wanted to avoid the uncertain consequences of an all out conflict. It is hard to overstate, to a European audience, the impact of the wars on the region, in which our forces may have been involved, but from which we could withdraw when we chose, leaving populations to pick up the pieces for years.
So the preference for caution should be understood in that context. For all that the JCPOA might not have covered, it succeeded in limiting Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium. The breaking of the agreement by Donald Trump in 2017 gave the green light to Tehran’s hardliners to ramp up uranium enrichment once again, thus raising, in theory, the threat level, opening the doors to where we are now.
But there had been attempts to create a new Middle East, away from old conflicts. The Abraham Accords, signed initially by the UAE and Bahrain with Israel in 2020 were one such effort. At the same time, a number of Gulf states, which had been excluded from the JCPOA, and worried at evidence of US policy inconsistency towards the Middle East, opened diplomatic overtures with Iran. These most notably resulted in the Saudi-Iran Agreement of March 2023.
But the horror of October 7th 2023, and what followed in Gaza, put an end to such progress, and started the chain of events which led to February 28th this year. With the decisive weakening by Israel of Iran’s allies and proxies, the opportunity it had long sought to take decisive action against Iran itself became real, together with the necessary support of a US President persuaded to do so
The immediate consequences, foreseen by many as the reason for caution against direct military action, are now apparent. Iran hitting out with missiles in many directions, targeting neighbouring states, and using its geography to cause worldwide economic damage – all suggest a state which had long prepared for such an assault upon it, and had plans and historical resilience to rely upon, even if not the consent of its people, thousands of whom it had brutally murdered in the protests earlier in the year.
As to where next, no one knows, but this one may not end with a fudged agreement, laying only the foundations for the next. The nature of the initial assault, the assassination of Iran’s leaders, and the response of Iran towards its neighbours and in the Strait of Hormuz, suggest an all or nothing conflict, in which there is an undeniable victor, though the definition of victory will be different for each. For that to happen, as US ground troops arrive, and the impact of such events on the people of Iran, no prediction is possible.
Gulf neighbours are outraged at Iranian attacks upon them, and appear increasingly resolute that the conclusion cannot leave uncertainty for the future. They will rightly want to restore and reassure the world that the safety and stability it had created over decades is not irrevocably lost. It is likely to diversify its relationships; an inconsistent and uncertain US may not be replaceable as an ally, but the cost of the US instigated conflict to the Gulf will not be forgotten. A new regional security axis, eastern based, is already forming.
And the impact of these events will not end there. We do not yet know how extensively the world’s economies may be affected. We do know that NATO has been damaged by the contradictory demands of the US President, and European defence strategy will evolve in response to this. It will cost all of us in Europe, but we will bear the cost. Moscow will be watching carefully, their economy and war against Ukraine benefitting from events.
It would be of some comfort to believe that this ‘just one more war’ will, against all the evidence and history, bring peace to the Middle East. It will not. The brutality and cruelty of events of the past few years, the unresolved issue of Palestine, the colossal toll of life and livelihood, with international law buried under ‘might is right’ currently seem more like the embers to be fanned for the future than the dying ashes of conflict.
But one day, events will have been so bad, that a sense of ‘never again’ may overwhelm the old men who ask their young to die for them, and they settle the ‘grand bargain’ everyone knows is needed to resolve the region.
There is always the chance that it might be this time.
Rt Hon Alistair Burt is Pro-Chancellor of Lancaster University and a former Minister for the Middle East. He writes and comments upon the Middle East in various media, and has no party political affiliation.
The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Prosper UK.