Winners and Losers from the latest World Disorder

In a recent article in the Financial Times, Martin Wolf referred to a principle of American politics: if you break something you own it.  President Trump started a war in the Middle East on 28 February, ignoring the advice of the Director of the CIA and the Director of Counter-terrorism that Iran did not pose an immediate, direct threat to the US. Even if, as Secretary of State Rubio has suggested, Trump was persuaded by Israel to start the war, he is still responsible for stopping it, by negotiated compromise, or by declaring victory, probably short of whatever may have been his original war aims.

It has been obvious for years that, in extremis, the Iranian regime would play its “Trump” card; closure of the Strait of Hormuz.  The longer the Strait is closed the greater the damage to the world economy.  Trump is not only like Narcissus who fell in love with his own image, he also exemplifies Hubris – excessive pride and arrogance.  He seems incapable of empathy, or even of admitting to mistakes, as when a misdirected Tomahawk cruise missile hit a girls’ school in Iran, killing over one hundred children.  In Greek mythology, Hubris is followed by Nemesis, precipitating the downfall of the Narcissist.  Will Trump fall?   Will he declare victory?   Or will the US and Israel succeed, not only in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but also in forcing the downfall of the detested Mullahs in Teheran and their brutal revolutionary guards?  Do Israel and the US have the same goals?  What about the collateral damage not only to the world economy, but also to the US’ erstwhile allies and partners around the world?

What is the impact on Ukraine, now in the fifth year of a war fending off invasion by Russia?   According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, member states have the right to defend themselves against attack.  The Charter does not distinguish between a democracy such as Ukraine and a theocratic autocracy such as Iran.  Two Permanent Veto wielding Members of the UN Security Council are in breach of its most important provision, outlawing aggression against other member states.

The first losers are people in countries such as Iran and Lebanon, where one fifth of the population has been displaced by Israel’s renewed attack on the Mullahs’ Hezbollah proxies.   The government of Lebanon seems helpless.  The hitherto stable and prosperous Gulf monarchies will be hard pressed to restore the status quo ante. The US has discredited the rules based international order set forth in the UN Charter in 1945.  As a beneficiary of this order, the US has thus scored an own goal, and is already a loser in terms of its reputation. Liberal democracies in Europe are among the main losers.   Disagreements between member states mean that the EU cannot act according to its economic strength, notably in relation to Ukraine where Trump fan Orban is holding up much needed financial assistance.

Trump has been behaving like a mafia boss with regard to allies in Europe and elsewhere.  During my time (1969-2007) in the UK Diplomatic Service, the Americans always told us that there was only one thing worse than allies – not having allies.  Brexit had already wrought immense damage to the UK economy, removing the country from the organisation that had been the cornerstone of its prosperity since 1973: another own goal.  The country can scarcely afford the increase in defence spending that is now essential. MAGA ideologue Steve Bannon told the New Statesman that Prime Minister Starmer’s distinction between support for defensive and offensive strikes in the Gulf, is “diplomatic bullshit.”  In view of the defence and intelligence relationship with the US, the UK is losing more than any other NATO ally.  Attempts to flatter Trump by the UK and the NATO Secretary General have failed.  A visit to the US by the King in April to celebrate 250 years of independence must be in doubt. Trump treats NATO as a protection racket, and has threatened to use force to seize territory - Greenland – belonging to an ally. The war has also diverted attention and resources from Ukraine: another loser, at least for now.

There are no real winners.  But the US cannot impose its will on China which portrays itself as a stable state which keeps to the rules regarding world trade, and does not attack other countries.  Threats to Taiwan, as part of China, do not count, from a Chinese perspective. China has a stranglehold on rare earths, essential in the modern economy.  Russia, with an economy one tenth the size of China’s, is a client state, reliant on Chinese technology to keep its war machine running.  But Russia is a winner in the short term, because high oil prices help to finance the war against Ukraine.  This war is however, a strategic disaster for Russia.  Putin has left himself no way out if Ukrainian resistance continues.

Israel is winning at present.  It has decimated Hamas in Gaza, and is applying the same methods to Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Iran will not pose a nuclear threat in the period ahead.  But will Israel be secure in the longer term, surrounded by weak and resentful neighbours, deprived perhaps of stable partners in the Gulf?  Nor is it likely that Iranians will be free of the Mullahs and the revolutionary guards who may be supported by twenty percent of the population.  (Iran is home to 90 million people.) As long as they retain the ability to launch drones and rockets in the wider Middle East, and to suppress protest at home, by brute force, preventing regime change, they are the winners in the war started by President Trump.  His   decision on 23 March to postpone, at least for five days, massive attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure is evidence of that.  The Iranians’ credible threat of retaliation by attacking the desalination plants on which people in the Gulf states depend for life itself, was enough.

This article was written for the Austro British Society's April Newsletter, and we have published it with the kind permission of the author

‍