The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Israel and Iran

  • Geopolitics: When opportunity knocks

    Geopolitics: When opportunity knocks

    By Timothy Ash

    All the focus at present is on the on-going war between Israel and Iran, but this just reminds us again of the importance of geopolitics and its ability to impact on markets and the global economy.

    Uncertainty and risks are back with us. The fear is that we see escalation, with potentially devastating impacts on global markets. For example, if we see regional energy sector assets subject to attack, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz could see a repeat of events in the 1970s with potential for an oil price shock to the global economy?

    Markets have a difficulty in figuring out geopolitics, and we saw the impact of that with Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when the market was largely unprepared and the result was a big move in global markets, a further inflation shock, higher central bank policy rates in response and a negative hit to global growth.

    Explanations as to why markets struggle with geopolitics are varied but I think it is partly the fact that geopolitics is a multidisciplinary subject, often involving foreign affairs, but understanding domestic factors influencing decision making in a range of countries, defense and security, even environmental issues, geography, economics, trade, markets, and now cyber and AI looking forward. There are many moving parts, and few people have all the tools to accurately call events.

    I think also in markets, and analysis, there is often a desire to see the glass half full, hope for the best, and not want to think about the uncomfortable and difficult to fathom results of out-of-the-box or black swan events. A bias to mean reversion when, actually politics globally appear to be going the other way, with more extremism, and likely more extreme, even systemic risks looming.

    READ ALSO: How we contracted infections using school toilets – Pupils

    Often, I also think there is a bias to think that we all share the same information set, have the same objectives and apply the same kind of logic. That’s a mistake, I think, if we look back at Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as one example. think also people ignore the impact of “opportunity” in the decisions that our leaders make.

    Just explaining all that around Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine. I think most people failed to understand the existential importance of Ukraine to Putin, and what he was willing to sacrifice in his decision to invade.

    Most outside observers heard the warnings of crippling Western sanctions on Russia and assumed that Putin would not be crazy enough to risk the Russian economy in order to invade and capture Ukraine. But for Putin, Ukraine was an important enough prize to take that very risk.

    We could also argue that he had a different information set or evaluated the risks differently – either he did not expect aggressive Western sanctions or, even if he did, he had spent the last decade building up Russian buffers, and assumed they provided enough insulation, should he decide (I would argue he decided long before) to invade.

    But for Putin the opportunity presented itself in 2022. He saw the West as weak and divided, with limited military capability to intervene on Ukraine’s part. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan sent a signal that the Biden administration was weak and uninterested in foreign military adventures.

    He saw himself as having leverage on Europe as it remained reliant on Russia for energy supplies – and he had spent the past twenty years buying and corrupting Western politicians and interests. On the issue of energy, he saw the energy card as potentially weakening with the carbon transition – the longer he left it, the weaker his leverage over Europe would become. He saw the Ukrainian military as relatively weak still, but rebuilding – and the longer he left it, the greater defense capability they would present, and more able to resist invasion.

    And he still thought the Russian military were capable and had overwhelming superiority over its Ukrainian counterpart. For Putin, it was a now-or-never moment – in his mind, the stars aligned in 2022.

    Others (not yours truly – I argued back as far as 2015 that a defining war between Ukraine and Russia was inevitable) simply failed to see that, or did not want to see the obvious. The obvious being the huge Russian troop build-up in 2021 and then early in 2022, and Putin even writing his essay in mid-2021 on why Ukraine was not really a state, and Russia and Ukraine were one nation. He even spelt out – quite literally – what was coming.

    One might also look at Azerbaijan’s defining wars with Armenia in 2000 and then 2023, the latter in particular reflected opportunity. Opportunity from the fact that Russia, which had a security alliance with Armenia, was tied up in Ukraine and had little military capability to intervene against Azerbaijan, and its military backer, Turkey, which Russia needed to maintain access to markets given Western sanctions. But also, the opportunity provided by technology, and the advantage provided by Turkish drones. Relating all this now to events in the Middle East – and drivers for events from Oct. 7, at least. First, Israeli PM, Netanyahu needed an opportunity to turn the news cycle against his own political and legal problems building up to Oct. 7. This could have been a political disaster for him, given criticism of the lack of preparedness of Israel for that attack – on Netanyahu’s watch.

    But events of October 7 provided an opportunity for Netanyahu by removing the constraints on Israel for military campaigns, against Hamas in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, Syria and now Iran. Fortunately for Netanyahu, the Biden administration was weak, going into a difficult election. Biden faced internal pressure from the left of the party, more pro-Palestinian in orientation, and this forced Biden to adopt a much more hawkish pro-Israeli line. It gave Netanyahu almost Carte blanche to act in Gaza et al, with the one constraint then being not to escalate to an all-out war with Iran – Biden did not want higher oil prices as he headed to elections. But that removed the constraints on Netanyahu elsewhere – Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon et al.

    And technology added to the opportunity for Netanyahu – which we saw in the pager attacks in Lebanon against Hezbollah, but also now against Iran proper. The same Western technological advantage seen in Ukraine – third generation NATO kit, beating fourth generation Russian kit, plus use of drones, AI et al, is also playing out for Israel against Iran.

    Netanyahu escalated to attack Iran over the past few weeks not because Iran was closer to moving to build a nuclear weapon but because events and technology, and Iran’s own weakness, presented him with an opportunity for an all-out victory.

    This was not about taking out the latent, but not real, nuclear threat but about removing a long-term strategic threat from Iran to Israel, and it’s about regime change. The opportunity was just too good for Netanyahu not to let up on.

    Now we can debate whether or not the Trump administration was involved or supportive of the decision by Israel to strike. But whether it knew, or approved or not of the attacks, I think Netanyahu knew that this US administration contains so many ardent religious supporters of Israel, that whatever it did, there would be no sanction on Israel for its actions. And understanding the egotistical personality of Trump, he knew that as long as the mission was successful – which he was sure of – that Trump would eventually fall in line, and behind Israel, as he has done so far.

    Now as events are transpiring, it seems that Israel does not quite have the military capacity to take Iran’s full nuclear capacity out, or to deliver regime change given the Islamic regime is entrenched, and has durability built over many years of being tested by the U.S. and its allies, plus Iraq under Saddam.

    Netanyahu needs the US to complete the job – albeit it is unclear whether regime change will produce a better, more sustainable long-term outlook, and the experience there from US past intervention in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc., is not good.

    The question is whether Trump will join Israel now in its fight with Iran.Will the U.S. get involved?

    Trump’s America First mantra for MAGA suggests no more foreign adventures. And this week, the likes of Bannon, Carlson, Gabbard, et al have pleaded with Trump to hold fire, and not get dragged into another Iraq.

    But I sense here that Trump cannot help himself – and Netanyahu is playing to Trump’s ego. Likely the pitch from Netanyahu to Trump will be that this can be his place in history. By providing a limited military intervention, with limited risks given the Islamic Republic is on its last legs, Trump can save the world from Iran’s nuclear threat and free Iran of a brutal regime. It can be final payback for the Iran embassy hostage siege, for the US embassy in Lebanon and marine barracks bombings.

    And while Trump’s peace efforts in Ukraine and Gaza are failing, Netanyahu will be presenting this as low hanging fruit and an opportunity for Trump, gifted to him by Netanyahu himself. Meanwhile, the Christian fundamentalists in the GOP, and the Iran hawks will be lobbying aggressively for Trump to seize the opportunity.

    Can he resist in favor of cutting a diplomatic deal with Iran, which might fall short of the mark, and leave him open to criticism that TACO – that Trump had the ability to end Iran’s nuclear program once and for all, and to bring down the regime, a long run enemy of the US, and he bottled it?

    I have my doubt, the opportunity, or temptation just looks too enticing for Trump.

    •            This article was first published in www.kyivpost.com

  • Did the Israeli attack anticipate the Iranian response?

    Did the Israeli attack anticipate the Iranian response?

    George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s famous 1980 book has an interesting title: Metaphors We Live By. The book is of the view that metaphor (the indirect comparison of two or more things which share one or more features) reflects or influences how people think and what they do. In this regard, metaphor is related to stereotypes (uncritical assumptions and positive or negative over-generalisations) and myths (ideas which are based on long-standing or widespread fascination, fear or awe).

    Metaphors, stereotypes and myths have been on ample display since 13 June, 2025 when Israel carried out a surprise attack on Iran. According to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the attack was carried out to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel itself is widely believed to have hundreds of nuclear weapons, and it has refused to admit or deny its possession of these weapons in media interviews. Israel has also refused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to its nuclear research facilities, and has declined to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Apart from being used to produce offensive weapons, nuclear capabilities can be put to peaceful uses for human well-being, especially to provide access to alternative energy sources for overall development. Such peaceful uses of nuclear resources are approved by the IAEA. For a country to seek to prevent another sovereign one from developing its nuclear capabilities or even possess nuclear weapons, while the aggressor nation possesses those capabilities, is therefore an overreach and amounts to a usurpation of the regulatory duty of the IAEA.

    Some have argued that the best thing for humanity is to create a nuclear-free world, because of the unimaginable devastation that usually attends nuclear accidents or the deliberate use of nuclear weapons. Such people however contend that if the world cannot be made nuclear-free, then all countries which have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons should be free to do so, to facilitate their development and guarantee their security.

    READ ALSO: How we survived herdsmen attack that claimed 200 lives in Benue community – Residents

    In fact, it has been pointed out in this regard that it is countries that do not have nuclear weapons or which agree to abandon their nuclear programmes (e.g., Iraq and Libya) that end up being attacked. Conversely, it is countries that possess nuclear weapons or stockpiles of other forms of weapons of mass destruction (e.g., Pakistan and North Korea) that appear to be safe from aggression however much such nuclear nations or their leaders may be hated or despised by some sections of the international community.

    It is for these reasons that some have argued that Iran does not actually possess nuclear weapons and is not on the verge of acquiring them. In fact, attention has been drawn to the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has been alleging, ostensibly as a scaremongering tactic, for the past thirty-three years now, that Iran is only weeks, months or a few years away from possessing nuclear weapons.

    For example, Al Jazeerah, like CBS, noted that in 1992, as a member of parliament, Netanyahu told the Knesset that “within 3 to 5 years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear weapon.” He made related claims three years later and also in 2009 and 2012. As Al Jazeerah notes, “and, 33 years after Netanyahu’s first so-called imminent warning, Israel attacks Iran [and he said], ‘If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It could be within a few months.’ … That’s despite the US Director of National Intelligence saying Iran isn’t building a nuclear weapon, months earlier. … But for Netanyahu, the slogan has been the same for decades.”

    Whatever the credibility or lack of Netanyahu’s allegations may be, Israel took it upon itself to attack Iran on 13 June, 2025, and the surprise attack has wrought remarkable damage on Iran in human, intellectual and physical terms. Specifically, the attack led to the killing of top Iranian nuclear scientists, some top Iranian military personnel, Iranian civilians, and also resulted in immense physical damage.

    In spite of the devastation, Iran has not appeared to have been dazed for too long, and it didn’t seem to have had the time to mourn its dead, considering the fact that within hours of the Israeli attack, Iran started its retaliation. And it was spectacular. It launched a mass of ballistic missiles against Israel. Some were successfully intercepted by the Israeli defence system respectively metaphorically named ‘Iron Dome’, ‘David Sling’ and so on, but some of the missiles beat the Israeli defence and managed to hit their targets. Considering the ease with which these Iranian missiles seemed to have been penetrating the Israeli anti-missile system, some have claimed that rather than call it “Iron Dome”, it should be called “Paper Dome”.

    There have been speculations that as the attacks and counter-attacks continued, Iran was launching more advanced missiles which were increasingly beating the Israeli defence system. This drew attention to some metaphors of the war. The Israeli attack on Iran was code-named “Operation Rising Lion”. However, given the robust retaliation by Iran, and speculations that at some point Netanyahu had fled from Israel under pressure, and also from the images of Israelis scampering to safety as the sirens were constantly sounding, some suggested that the Israeli attack should actually have been codenamed “Operation Running Rabbit”.

        The Iranian missiles hit various strategic targets in Israel and have caused extensive damage. These include the headquarters of the Israeli military, the offices of Israel’s famed intelligence agency (MOSSAD), Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, and the strategic Haifa Port. The Iranian missile attacks have created an unaccustomed image of devastation in Israel and widespread panic among the citizens, leading to desperate efforts to leave the country to escape the Iranian barrage. One estimate put the number of Israelis who had fled to Cyprus within the first week of the war with Iran at 30,000.

    Following Iran’s confounding response to the Israeli attack, Israel has been inviting America to join it in the war to decapitate any presumed imminent Iranian nuclear endeavours and to topple the current Iranian government. According to CNN in a 20 June, 2025 report, “Under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Kameinei, Iran has emerged as a formidable power in the Middle East and a vital counterweight to US dominance – just as China is working to expand its own diplomatic and economic footprint in the region.”

    There have been ambivalent signals from America’s President Donald Trump regarding Israel’s call, and the American ambivalence has been eliciting threats by different countries, such as Pakistan, to come to Iran’s aid, should the United States accede to Israel’s request.

     In the meantime, Pakistan has made the following demands of the United Nations Security Council as reported on 20 June, 2025: “First, categorical rejection and condemnation of Israel’s attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran since 13th of June … Second, play its role to end the hostilities and promote de-escalation for achieving a comprehensive ceasefire before the situation spirals out of control and threatens the peace and stability of the entire region.”

    Pakistan continued: “Third, clear denunciation of the targeting of IAEA safeguarded nuclear facilities against provisions of international law and the UN Charter as reflected in the UN Security Council resolutions, IAEA resolutions and international humanitarian law including the Geneva Conventions. The Security Council must implement its own resolution 487. Fourth, call for dialogue and diplomacy to promote a peaceful and lasting resolution of the crisis. Diplomacy must be given a chance. … Regrettably, Israeli unlawful strikes against Iran came at a time of intense diplomatic engagement on Iran’s nuclear issue.”

    Meanwhile, Israel has been creating the farfetched scenario that when Iran finishes with Israel, the US will be Iran’s next target of attack. This is a further attempt to try to persuade America to join the war on the side of Israel. Moreover, as the Telegraph of 19 June, 2025 reports, “Israel has warned that missiles launched by Teheran could hit Europe as it intensified efforts to win Western support for its war with Iran in an online advertising campaign.” These propaganda efforts designed to denigrate Iran seem to be ironically lionising the country.

    A war or military attack must have a strategic objective. Was seeing Tel Aviv devasted, Haifa in ruins, and Ben Gurion Airport shattered a strategic objective of Netanyahu’s 13 June, 2025 surprise attack on Iran? Was exploding the myth of the unmatchable Israeli intelligence as symbolised by MOSSAD and the shattering of the stereotype of the invincibility of the Israeli military one of Netanyahu’s strategic objectives? Was shredding the close to a century of cutting-edge research as represented by the destruction of the Weizmann Institute Netanyahu’s strategic goal? Was seeing Israelis die and making Israelis feel unsafe in Israel an anticipated outcome?

    As a Yoruba proverb cautions, war is not like a delicious dish to be relished by either the person serving it or the person to which it is served. Another Yoruba proverb admonishes that it’s the beginning of war that we know; we never know how it will end. It is therefore never out of fashion to preach and maintain peace.