Dangerous Calculations

Dangerous Calculations: The Risk of Renewed Strikes on Iran

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have warned that any fresh American or Israeli attack would invite a devastating response, claiming that Tehran has secured sufficient weapons for years of confrontation. Brigadier-General Ali Belali’s declaration came as Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisted that the mission against Iran remained unfinished and renewed allegations about Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Eight months into a war that has unsettled the Middle East, neither side appears inclined to lower its guard.

The latest developments are hardly reassuring. Washington has established Task Force Iron Gate to disrupt the movement of sanctioned materials and military technology across Iran and the Caspian Sea, extending pressure already exerted through its naval blockade. Tehran has dismissed the initiative as empty posturing. Meanwhile, the IRGC says it is closely monitoring Scorpion Strike operations. Reports of tankers catching fire and vessels coming under attack near the Strait of Hormuz have added to the anxiety.

The margin for miscalculation is narrowing.

Nonetheless, there is a deeper strategic problem here. America possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority, yet its ability to translate battlefield strength into a political settlement has proved considerably less convincing. Iran, having endured months of bombardment and economic pressure, remains just as determined to demonstrate that military punishment cannot dictate the terms of an eventual settlement. Neither calculation offers much comfort to Gulf states whose energy installations, shipping routes and economic stability remain exposed to every fresh round of hostilities.

Last week’s American midterms have added another complication. Iranian military spokesman Abolfazl Shekarchi has portrayed the Republican defeat as evidence of Washington’s failure to break Tehran’s resistance. Even as that interpretation overlooks American grievances over inflation, tariffs and immigration, the war’s economic and political costs were unmistakably part of the electoral debate. President Donald Trump will face a Democratic-controlled Congress from January, with greater scope for scrutiny of his military commitments.

Nor should Israel’s domestic uncertainty be overlooked. Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc emerged from the October election with 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, leaving coalition negotiations unresolved. An Israeli political transition, should one materialise, would hardly settle longstanding disagreements over Iran’s nuclear programme.

A diplomatic opening nevertheless remains. Tehran has reportedly submitted a nuclear proposal through Qatar, while Washington insists that the nuclear question form part of any agreement. Iran’s demands for sanctions relief, the release of frozen assets, reparations and an end to the American blockade remain formidable obstacles. Neither side appears prepared to surrender its principal bargaining positions, and another round of bombing would scarcely make those differences easier to resolve.

Pakistan has every reason to support continued mediation. Its diplomatic engagement with Tehran, Qatar and other regional capitals has given Islamabad a useful role in keeping communication alive. More importantly, another major escalation would threaten energy supplies, overseas Pakistani livelihoods and an economy still struggling to escape external shocks. Islamabad cannot afford the luxury of treating instability in its western neighbourhood as somebody else’s quarrel.