America’s lower legislative chamber narrowly passed a ruling last week nominally curbing President Donald Trump from continuing his war on Iran. Four Republicans jumped sides for the first time in Trump’s second presidency to join the Democratic Party to pass the ruling under the War Powers Act.
The most powerful military force in human history, combined with its regional colony Israel along with unelected Arab monarchies are lined up and vigorously attacking the far weaker �" actually third rate in terms of military-economic punch �" Iran, which is virtually on its own, even diplomatically. Thanks to the multi-nodal global media, the world community knows about the constant battering of Iran.
Firstly, for decades, it was a crippling economic and political sanctions siege and, when that failed to bend Tehran to the West’s attempted dominance of West Asia, they resorted to the more recent successive military assaults.
Iran’s survival of all this economic and military harassment and destruction is partly due to its unique geographical location that makes land-based aggression very difficult, both in terms of invasion accessibility and sustaining ground operations. Iran’s northern boundaries face Asia’s vast hinterland with immediate neigbouring states ethnically and ideologically akin to Iranians. And beyond that comforting demographic circle lie the next two largest Great Powers, Russia and China, historically long amenable to the ancient Persian Empire.
The country’s east and west also largely border ethnically kin nations �" except Christian Armenia �" that also deny access to an extra-regional aggressor. It is the country’s long southern coast from the Arabian Sea (Indian Ocean) through the Hormuz Strait and along the whole Persian Gulf that provides direct land access for any aggressor.
Iran now matches both the US and Israel in this confrontation over
dominance in West Asia. As an increasing number of analysts are
acknowledging, Iran’s defiance is re-ordering the global power balance.
This seemingly vulnerable southern flank is also protected by a series of high and rugged mountain ridges all along that coast. These very steep ridges present a formidable barrier to any invading sea-borne force. In the first place, much of the coast comprises steep cliffs abutting the sea, making amphibious landing limited to only a few stretches of beaches. Forces landing on these beaches not only must then struggle across steep ridges too precipitous to accommodate motorable roads.
Hence invading forces cannot carry heavy equipment such as artillery and combat vehicles such as tanks. Worse, barren, waterless deserts extend deep inland from that coast making it difficult for armies to march inland. All this makes it almost impossible for any large-scale conventional invasion of Iran by any extra-regional forces, however powerful and sophisticated they may be.
The West’s defeat of Iraq, twice over, was only enabled by the collaboration of neighbouring Saudi Arabia and other adjoining, similar Arab monarchies. They allowed amassed armoured forces to swiftly charge into Iraq across mostly flat desert with troops being supplied from the air continuously. The treeless flat desert enabled such mass scale warfare which, in turn, enabled rapid application of overwhelming force �" the simplest of successful military tactics.
Iran’s biggest neighbour is Iraq, a Shia-majority nation, yet subjugated by the West and, hosting a dozen Western military bases �" bases mainly used to keep Iraq subjugated. Iraq is not hospitable to a massive conventional deployment of aggressive Western forces against neighbour Iran.
Power balance: This was why the West has had little option other than the relentless and heavy aerial bombardment that it launched in June last year and then, began again on February 28 this year. After barely a month of such bombardment �" seemingly with full aerial dominance -the US had lost no less than 43 high value aircraft assets.
The repeated aerial strikes also depleted ammunition stocks compelling the Americans to hurriedly shift stocks from NATO’s European theatre. While this is a bonanza for the munitions industry, for the US military, it is causing logistical instability in terms of maintaining worldwide readiness. This overall weakens US’ global strategic posture in relation to rival global powers.
Iran’s military resilience has actually given it a strategic advantage over the West in the region. It is now Washington that wants to slow down and recoup. Tehran is now insisting on its own interests being met not only on its immediate war front in the Gulf, but also on the Lebanese front where its staunch non-state ally, the Hezbollah Movement is under severe attack by invading Israel.
Iran now matches both the US and Israel in this confrontation over dominance in West Asia. As an increasing number of analysts are acknowledging, Iran’s defiance is re-ordering the global power balance.
Congress: All of these unexpected politico-military pressures then combined with the emerging domestic socio-economic pressures, to push the ruling Republicans and opposition Democrats to act in Congress. They needed to smoothen their own electoral prospects for the looming Congress midterm elections later this year.
Hence, last Wednesday, the House of Representatives saw moves led by Opposition Democrats, to invoke the War Powers Act, which allows Congress to force an end to hostilities if the President does not get its authorisation after entering an armed conflict abroad.
Since the start of the Iran war, Democrats have argued that Congress, not the President, holds the right to declare war. However, the White House has countered that the military operations in Iran do not require congressional approval.
The War Powers Act, which has been in force since 1973, requires the President to seek lawmakers’ approval before foreign military action. Only imminent attacks on the US allow the President to unilaterally deploy troops. In such an instance, the President must inform Congress within 48 hours. If Congress then fails to declare war, the President must withdraw troops within 60 days of entering the war.
In the case of the war on Iran, the US was not under imminent threat. After all, the US and Israel attacked first. The White House also failed to withdraw thousands of US troops deployed to fight the war at its regulatory 60-day deadline of April 29.
The Democrats, who hold a minority of seats in the House, have tried to invoke the War Powers Act three times since the US and Israel began the war on February 28. However, all previous attempts had failed.
Last Wednesday’s vote count was 215 in favour of the resolution to restrain Trump and 208 against. Four Republicans switched sides in what appeared to be a rare public rebuke of Trump’s current West Asian tactic.
Dragging confrontation: While Republicans initially supported the war in public, they have begun to shift their stances as the US economy and global trade have been badly hit by the dragging confrontation with a militarily innovative Tehran. Trump’s approval ratings have also dropped drastically, worrying the Republicans with their eye on the midterm elections.
According to reports from Washington, Republican lawmakers Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky broke party lines two weeks ago when the last vote was held. On Wednesday, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania joined them.
Analysts say that at this point, the House vote is largely symbolic. They point out that the Senate, where Republicans also hold a slim majority, also needs to pass the Resolution as well. Senate Republicans have so far resisted efforts by the Democrats to kick-start the process that would force a US halt to the Iran war.
The vote to advance the process in the Senate was held two weeks ago with a 50-47 tally in the 100-member Senate. Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting in favour while Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a vociferous critic of Iran, was the only Democrat to vote against the measure. Analysts point out that even if the US Senate follows the House in invoking limits on Trump’s war on Iran, Trump could veto the Resolution.
In that instance, Congress would have to pass the measure by a two-thirds majority to override the President’s veto. That is highly unlikely because the majority in Congress, including many Democrats, still want to subjugate Iran.
All this politicking in Washington shows that the Iran war is not the result of Donald Trump’s idiosyncrasies per se, but represents the general policy and global strategy of the US Government. It is a strategy that is generally supported by the entire Western alliance and its proxies, although there was not much enthusiasm among any of them to support the Iran War itself.
The writer is a senior journalist in Sri Lanka and he writes on international and regional issues
