OPINION – It’s still unclear just how President Trump may further respond to the recent coordinated drone attack on a Saudi oil facility that has been blamed on Iran by the U.S., France, the U.K., Germany and Saudi Arabia.
Within days of the attack, the President announced that he was sending more troops to the Gulf to assist the Saudis in fending off drone and missile attacks in the future. He also imposed further sanctions.
Tehran continues to deny involvement in the attack, while neighboring Saudi Arabia says that while it doesn’t want war, all options – including military response – are on the table.
It’s difficult to predict whether President Trump will decide to use additional measures against Iran in response to the attack, including military action. If he does decide to use military force, we should prepare for a war that will engulf most of the region in misery and destruction.
The Potential Battle Map
Saudi Arabia sits on the on the front line. The Kingdom’s oil, natural gas, water infrastructure and other industrial parks would likely be targeted first. Saudi Arabia and its allies, including the United States, would be unable to wage a first strike attack that would disable Iran’s retaliatory capabilities.
Other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states see potential devastation and are advocating for a cautious, measured approach. Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Zayed (MbZ) understands the devastating impact a military confrontation would have on Abu Dhabi and its sister emirates. Accordingly, he is much more interested in a diplomatic resolution of Saudi-Iranian tensions.
MbZ’s position is shared by leaders in Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman. Bahrain, effectively a Saudi vassal state, will not oppose the Saudi position. Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been a staunch supporter of Saudi Arabia’s war drumbeat against Iran, Israel is currently in political turmoil, and Netanyahu’s political future in limbo.
In a nutshell, no regional state, including Saudi Arabia and Israel—whose current leaders are the most ardent supporters of potential military retaliation—will benefit, either in the short-term or long-term, from a war with Iran. The Gulf Arab emirates will suffer heavily, and their tribal families’ hold on power will become tenuous. In case of war, the presence of U.S. troops in the Gulf states will be unable to secure the future survival of their archaic tribal regimes.
Unlike in 1991, when American forces guaranteed the survival of the Kuwaiti and Saudi regimes following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, an all-out war with Iran will most likely spread across the Persian Gulf, the Levant, and other parts of the Middle East. In such a scenario, the survival of the tribal regimes becomes one of many side issues, and not necessarily a critical objective for outside warring parties. Sadly for these states, the “regime change” that some of them have sought for Iran may instead be visited upon them. If Gulf oil facilities go up in flames, family rule will teeter as the Arab monarchies’ economic bargaining power diminishes.
During the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, Gulf monarchies survived because of their support for Iraq against Iran. Once Washington decided in 1982 to help Saddam Hussein not lose the war, it became only a matter of time before Iran would capitulate. Gulf monarchies also survived the short Gulf War in early 1991. Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990 and was forced by a U.S.-led coalition to withdraw seven months later. That was a mini war with limited objectives, which cannot possibly compare to a potential war with Iran today. Even then, as the Iraqi army retreated from Kuwait, it was able to burn nearly 600 oil wells. Those fires burned for weeks, causing ecological, human, health, and economic disasters. A war with Iran could result in the burning of thousands of oil wells and installations in Iran and across the Arab littoral from Kuwait to Oman.
If Iran were to survive a Saudi-driven war successfully, despite U.S.-supplied fire power, Gulf populations will begin to wonder why their governments have been spending billions of dollars on sophisticated foreign weapons systems. They would pose several questions to their rulers: What is the value of these weapons? Shouldn’t the oil-rich Arab states spend their wealth instead on combating the rising poverty of their peoples?
The effects of war with Iran would also be felt in several Levant countries, including Israel and Lebanon. In support of embattled Iran, the pro-Iranian Lebanese Shia political party Hezbollah would likely enter the war by launching missiles, rockets, and drones against Israeli towns, cities, and installations in northern Israel. Hezbollah’s missiles could cause considerable damage as far south as Haifa and the industrial complexes in the Akko-Haifa region. It’s also not unthinkable for Iran to launch medium-range missiles against Israeli targets in the heavily populated center of the country.
Although Israel has the capability to face a two-front attack, Israel’s population would be rattled by the ensuing chaos, especially if the attacks caused a high number of casualties. Israel escaped getting involved in previous Gulf wars but would have a harder time this time around.
Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq would also get caught in a regional war with Iran. Lebanon’s national politics is already precarious, with Hezbollah being the most influential political group in the country. Jordan’s internal stability would be threatened as well with the arrival of more refugees and the rising tide of protests against poor economic policies and systemic corruption inside the Hashemite monarchy. Iraq could easily be used as a proxy territory, possibly by the Iranians, the U.S., and the remnants of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda.
Losing Hearts and Minds
The recent Arab Barometer survey of Arab youth shows that majorities have favorable views of China, including in terms of economic relations. Less than half hold similar views of the United States. If a war with Iran results in no clear victory for the American-Saudi side or in a stalemate, Arab youth views toward their regimes and the United States will sour considerably. In this scenario, the United States would have supported Gulf autocratic regime but lost Arab publics—a sad eulogy for Washington’s efforts since 9/11 to win the hearts and minds of Arab and Muslim peoples.
These unpleasant Arab and non-Arab regional realities would be the backdrop of an all-out war against Iran. And the more complex they are, the more dangerous and chaotic the unintended consequences would be.
The Arab Middle East is not in a good place—politically or economically. Arab peoples are mostly young, restless, poor, disenfranchised, and alienated from their governments. According to the Arab Barometer report, roughly 30 percent of the 350 million Arabs are between the ages of 15 and 29. As a result of high unemployment and poverty, there is widespread discontent among the youth about their economic prospects. Street demonstrations against regime economic policies are occurring almost daily across the region.
Despite the pervasive security state in Egypt, for example, demonstrations against the corruption of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s regime continue unabated. They have spread from Cairo to other Egyptian cities. Youth demonstrations of various sizes are a regular occurrence across the region, from Sudan to North Africa and the Levant. Dissatisfaction with economic and political conditions is prevalent across the region. Hopelessness and economic bleakness are driving large numbers of Arab youth to emigrate.
These socio-economic drivers are not religious or ideological. They are economic and political in nature. While many youth have come to tolerate the oppressive nature of state securitization across the region, they have become more vocal against corruption of their individual regimes, whether in Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, or Algeria.
The Path Forward
If President Trump sticks with his instincts against waging yet another war in the greater Middle East, deal making becomes the only clear path forward. To attain this goal, it’s imperative that Washington revisit the 2015 nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) with Iran and the other signatories. Trump’s economic sanctions have hurt Iran’s economy considerably, and Tehran may be willing to reopen negotiations on extending the breakout time and other conditions specified in the JCPOA.
A second avenue to facilitate the making of a deal with Iran would be a concerted effort to convince the Saudis to end the war in Yemen. The political and power sharing demands of the Houthis and the pro-Saudi factions in that war-torn country are achievable. A proxy war cannot and must not go on forever. Saudi Arabia should be persuaded that the Yemen war is unwinnable in the long run, especially as more and more U.S. Members of Congress persist in questioning the continued U.S. military support for the Saudis there.
A security collaboration between Riyadh and Tehran is necessary for the long-term security of the Gulf. The United States, back in the 1950s, realized that Gulf security could only be attained through a partnership between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The geographic realities of that region haven’t changed much since then. The Arab and Persian littorals of the Persian Gulf must find a way to secure the Gulf. If President Trump is interested in establishing some sort of rapprochement with Iran and in avoiding another war in the greater Middle East, then this is his path toward a “Deal of the Century.”
Read more national security opinion, news, and analysis in The Cipher Brief
