The ongoing conflict between Israel and the US on the one hand and Iran on the other has cast a dark shadow not only on the belligerent States but on the region and beyond. It is disturbing that the long war has endured despite mediation and negotiations, informal agreements, and even a formal memorandum of understanding (MoU). Deep mistrust and mutual animosity have been at the root of hostilities. 

A long war with shifting objectives has an uncertain end. Peace, security, and stability have proved elusive to achieve and difficult to sustain. New issues have emerged to complicate negotiations and divert attention from earlier differences and core issues. 

War And Declining Security

Alfred T. Mahan had highlighted the importance of sea power (including air power in the contemporary context) and the salience of the Middle East for the projection of power by the US. The development of the US strategic doctrine, alliances in the energy-rich region and military bases in the Middle East were guided by that thesis.  Although the war began with confidence in its power projection, Mahan would have been disappointed by the prosecution and outcomes of the current conflict. It has divided public opinion at home, weakened the status of the leadership and the State, and diluted alliances across the globe. Ironically, the long war has impacted the security of the protagonists who initiated the war. 

The US and Israel had the advantage of hard power but were unable to achieve their stated objectives of regime change and military victory.  While they degraded Iran’s military and civilian infrastructure and even eliminated its top leadership, they were unable to oust the regime or its capacity to retaliate. In fact, hardline elements gained in strength and even Iran’s disenchanted population supported their regime against foreign aggression. The war brought China and Russia closer to Iran, in military and diplomatic support and assistance in reconstruction. 

On the vexed nuclear issue, the US was keen to get a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)-plus settlement. However, Iran seems unwilling to concede - in fact, it seeks to retain the advantage. 

Although Iran remained under NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) safeguards and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight, even after the US‘ withdrawal from JCPOA till the eve of the war, its enrichment activities and stockpiles raised issues, while monitoring faced challenges. Ambiguity is not desirable in the non-proliferation regime that Iran is a signatory to. It has complicated the nuclear equations in the region, especially with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and put pressure on Israel's nuclear deterrence. 

The war also exposed the limited impact of a kinetic war, which had a devastating effect in degrading military and civilian assets but may have had little effect on the will of the people and its government. 

Iran’s ability to forestall a US victory and penetrate Israel’s air defence with ballistic missiles has added to uncertainty and insecurity in the region. Despite pressure, Iran did not agree on the inclusion of reference to its ballistic missile capabilities in the negotiations with the US. Further, Iran’s asymmetric response in its attack on US bases and even civilian infrastructure in the Gulf States, who are fellow Muslims, increased the cost of the war and impacted relationships.  For the Gulf States, post-war understanding will undoubtedly consider the cost of alliance with the US and the risk of attack from Israel or Iran.

The Hormuz Issue

The Strait of Hormuz was well known as a chokepoint in the region, along with Bab el Mandeb and the Suez Canal, but it had enjoyed freedom of navigation before the war began. Its weaponisation took many by surprise. But, given that Iran has exacted a series of concessions to buttress its control over the waterway, it may be loath to give up its advantage in future negotiations. 

So even if it does not levy transit fees, the imposition of additional service charges and logistics control on ship transiting Hormuz seems a distinct possibility, adding to cost and uncertainty on the freedom of navigation. The US-Iran MoU had provided for fees to be charged by Iran, so when attempts were made to take a southern route along the coast of Oman, it met with retaliation from Iran, placing maritime traffic in peril. 

It is interesting to recall that when Iran submitted its claims to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982, it had positioned the Hormuz not as an international waterway but as its coastal waters; accordingly, while it was prepared to provide access, even in its territorial waters, it retained the right to administer and control maritime traffic on a contractual basis. The legality of its contention can be challenged, but the war has created circumstances in which Iran, in cooperation with Oman, has now obtained leverage – something that has been implicitly accepted by the US in the MoU. This will undoubtedly impose a greater cost on regional and other powers. 

Shifting Sands In West Asia

The long war in the region goes beyond the current Iran war as it includes the involvement of multiple States and even non-State actors and extends back in time. These complex reasons have compelled the region to review the options for security and stability.  

Perhaps the biggest shift has been the resumption of dialogue between the US and Iran. Although agreements have not had longevity, the Islamabad MoU provided an understanding on the nuclear issue, addressed the issue of proxies, the withdrawal of sanctions for Iran’s return to the global community, and the new issue of transit through the Hormuz Strait. This could have had a positive impact on energy markets and influenced peace and stability in the region. 

The long war impacted the security of Israel not only as it had opened up several fronts in the conflict and exposed the gaps in its air defence, but it also caused a heavy toll on its infrastructure and domestic public sentiment. The technology asymmetry led to a massive deployment of a missile-drone response from Iran, which altered the dynamics of military affairs. The most serious impact for Israel has been the effect on its public image globally, most seriously in the US. 

The relations between Iran and the Gulf States, which bore the brunt of Iran’s aggressive retaliation, have been put to a serious test. They feel an understanding has to be developed with Iran, which is a neighbour but with whom they have big differences. Many Gulf States were considering following the example of those that had developed future-oriented ties with Israel and a security guarantee from the US, but the region is now reviewing options.

The Palestine issue has not withered away, and the rapprochement with Israel has become more debated within the region. A deepening of the Abraham Accords will require progress on the Palestinian issue. Further, the Palestinian issue is now seen through a different lens in many Western countries. 

Another development has been the evolving role of regional, peripheral, and outside powers. Divisions within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), particularly between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia, have become more marked. Meanwhile, Arab states such as Oman, Qatar, and Egypt have played a key mediating role in de-escalation in the Iran war. Non Arab States in the periphery, such as Turkey and Pakistan, have moved to center stage, supporting mediation and also providing options for security guarantees; to some extent, this has been welcomed in the US. New economic and connectivity options are being discussed. The Mecca Pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan is significant. 

Russia and China have emerged as Iran's principal supporters, providing intelligence and material support in the war and diplomatic support in the broader arena. China is said to have helped in the rapid reconstruction of many infrastructure facilities that were destroyed. China has also positioned itself strategically in the camp opposing US-Israel in the region while building interdependence with the allies of the US in the region. 

India’s Extended Neighbourhood

The long war and the subsequent instability have impacted India’s energy, manpower, food, maritime, and other sectors. 

The region had emerged as our extended neighbourhood, in which we had a growing network of future-oriented strategic partnerships. However, the war has transformed it into one in which externalities, on which India has limited influence, have a deeper impact on regional dynamics. 

If the war continues, it will affect India’s economy and growth potential. India may have to explore new responses to the dynamic developments not only to promote peace, prosperity and stability in the region but also to leverage its national priorities. Most significantly it has impacted the credibility of old alliances and the new understandings are beginning to unveil. 

(The writer is a former diplomat, currently Professor of Diplomatic Practice at Jindal Global University. Views expressed are personal.)