The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
The strategic implications of America’s capitulation to Iran and lessons for the Russia-Ukraine conflict
THE LAST WORD | ANDREW M. MWENDA | Paragraph 8 says the two parties also agree to discuss the issue of Iran’s uranium enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the “Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs”. The phrase “nuclear needs” is an acknowledgement by USA that Iran should have a nuclear program. That is a big gift to Iran. The Trump regime had been arguing before the war that Iran should have no nuclear program, no missile stockpiles, etc. Now Trump personally has said Iran should have missiles like all other countries. It is unlikely that Trump will get a better deal than Obama had. The JCPoA was negotiated by USA with all the five permanent members of the Security Council: the USA, the UK, China, Russia and France, plus Germany. They negotiated from a position of strength. The new agreement will be negotiated by America alone and from a position of weakness.
In April, Iran put out a 14-point plan which was rejected by Trump. Now in June, Trump has signed an MOU which is similar to the 14 points. Trump says he signed the MOU because the world was going into an economic crisis. But this was caused by his attack on Iran. This means the war cost America a lot of money, blood and equipment but brought it to a worse situation than before the war. The MOU is also an admission that the balance of power in the region is shifting in Iran’s favor. Thus, the MOU is an admission by the USA that Iran is emerging as a big power in the region, that it is gaining regional primacy, and that it is becoming what in international relations is called a “regional hegemon”.
Before this war, Israel was becoming the regional hegemon in that area. It was attacking and annexing territory in its neighborhood. Now after 110 days of war, everything has fallen apart. The countries in the Gulf that had signed the Abraham Accords with Israel have withdrawn, and those who had not signed have signalled they will not. Before the war, Iran was considered a rogue state. So one could attack it without fearing repercusions. The MOU clearly states that America guarantees the sovereignty of Iran. It also guarantees the sovereignty of Lebanon, which Israel is invading. The first clause of the MOU mentions Lebanon. In fact, Lebanon is mentioned three times where the USA guarantees its territorial integrity. This mandates the US to force Israel out of Lebanon. This part of the MOU places America and Israel at loggerheads.
As I write this article, Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, are warning Israel over Lebanon, telling it to stop its war in that country. Vance said, “You are a country of only nine million people, and you can’t kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have.” Trump added: “Israel has been fighting too many wars for too long, and you don’t have to knock down an apartment block every time you are looking for somebody because there are so many people in those apartment houses, and they are all not Hezbollah, that I can tell you. When two drones are shot in the desert and they fall harmlessly, you don’t have to knock down buildings in Beirut. They could be hit better, and frankly, they could do a better job.”
In an interview with a journalist, Trump said, “We are the ones with all the guns and the B2 bombers. If it was not for Trump, Israel would have been eviscerated.” When the journalist asked Trump about his relationship with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, he said: “It’s good but frankly we have to keep him sane.” Here is an American president openly revealing Israel’s military vulnerability and even calling an Israeli prime minister insane, which he is. Vance, on his part, said, “You have seen people in the Israel cabinet who have come out and attacked this deal. President Trump is the only person in the world who is sympathetic to Israel at this moment in time. I may not be attacking the only powerful ally I have in the entire world. Two thirds of the defensive weapons that have been used protect Israel have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars. Anyone in Israel who thinks their problem is the president of USA needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”
This may be the first time key US leaders have spoken so candidly about Israel. It is also a clear sign that Washington is admitting that its influence in that region is waning and therefore ceding its position to Iran. It is always easy for people to go to war but hard to get out of it. This is more so if the losing party is a superpower. This was the case of USA in Vietnam (10 years), the Soviets in Afghanistan (9 years), the USA in Iraq (7 years), and the USA in Afghanistan (20 years). Why? Accepting defeat as a leader of a great power is a sign of weakness, especially in a war a president started. No president of a superpower can stand being accused of capitulation. Only Trump could do this!
Of course Trump has no other better way forward because keeping the war going was going to lead to an economic crisis. The Washington Post reported that Israel was going to undermine the peace agreement. But this would be quite risky for Israel because it cannot take on Iran by itself. Their best option is to go along with USA, not to undermine the MOU. Israel’s influence on America today is limited by three factors. First, Trump has absolute mastery of the Republican Party, so Netanyahu cannot use Congress to undermine him. A significant share of Democratic voters is hostile to Israel right now, which weakens the alternative hand Tel Aviv can play. Netanyahu is facing an election in October, losing which may take him to jail. So he cannot afford to play hardball with Trump. And if Trump turned off American support to Israel, that country would be doomed.
Of course the problem with Israel is not Netanyahu but the shift in its politics to the right. I do not see any replacement of Netanyahu who will do better than him. I recently saw an interview with former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett on Al Jezeera. He sounded more extreme than Netanyahu. In fact, I am inclined to believe Netanyahu may be the moderating factor in the current ultra-right-wing politics that have come to dominate Israel. He has also been very adept at manipulating the American system to his advantage. I don’t see which other Israeli politician can achieve that. And without the ability to manipulate America, Israel cannot survive as a state – unless its politics changes.
The lesson from this Iran war is that when you seek regime change in circumstances where a country is facing what it sees as an existential threat, you are likely to get extremists to take over, not the much-vaunted “liberal democrats”. The West has been talking of regime change in Russia, blaming President Vladmir Putin personally for the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It may one day wake up and realise that the successors of Putin are more hardline. They may even use a nuclear weapon and force Kiev to unconditional surrender. And once a nuclear weapon is used, it is hard to control a degeneration into a global nuclear catastrophe.
****
amwenda@ugindependent.co.ug
