Who won the war? It’s a total surprise
Nobody saw this coming
If this is the end of the fighting (for now), who won the war?
Experts are coming to a consensus: Iran is the winner.
Big time.
One of Canada’s best-known foreign policy experts, Janice Stein of the Munk School of Global Affairs, put it plain as day on the CBC with host, Adrienne Arsenault.
“Adrienne, this is a very fragile ceasefire,” said Stein. “In a situation like this, it seems clear that both sides already kind of claim wins of sorts, but what sort of position does this leave the U.S. and Israel in, and then Iran?”
“This is, frankly Adrienne, just a huge strategic defeat for the United States,” said Stein.
Watch the interview:
Here are some of her main points:
The ceasefire is fragile and uncertain, as missile exchanges between Iran and Israel continued post-announcement.
Iran exercises military control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route, marking a significant strategic shift.
Iran now controls about 20% of the world’s oil and LNG supplies, giving it significant leverage to influence global energy markets, including the ability to disrupt or enable supply flows through the Strait of Hormuz.
The United States and Israel face significant strategic setbacks: Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz, and none of the U.S. or Israel’s primary objectives (limiting Iran’s uranium enrichment, missile production, or proxy support) were achieved.
Iran’s position is strengthened, with its foreign minister emphasizing that safe passage through the Strait will occur only through coordination with Iranian armed forces, effectively confirming Iran’s control.
American political scientist Robert Pape goes ever further. He says Iran now takes its place as the fourth most powerful country in the world.
“Iran is far stronger than it was just 40 days ago. It is in control of 20% of the world’s oil. It is now an emerging fourth center of power. … The United States is on one side, and the rivals are China, Russia and now Iran,” Pape told Democracy Now.
[Iran] is now an emerging fourth center of power.
Will Canada be asked to send troops, now that there is a ceasefire?
As PeaceQuest readers know, Canada has pledged to send a combination of ships, surveillance aircraft, and support personnel, “predicated on the notion that there will be a ceasefire,” according to Canada’s defence minister. Other European countries have promised the same.
With a ceasefire in place, as fragile as it is, how will Canada and others respond to Trump’s demands for help?
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told European governments that the U.S. President wants concrete commitments within days to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, diplomats said on Thursday, as the alliance faces U.S. threats to leave.
Britain and Germany say they will send ships, but only with a permanent ceasefire (emphasis added.) Germany wants the mission to have a UN mandate, as well.
Pressure is sure to mount on Canada to send ships, planes and troops if the ceasefire holds. Prime Minister Mark Carney was quick to say that the ceasefire must include Lebanon as well, ending Israel’s relentless bombings this week that have killed hundreds.
No matter who the experts think has won or lost, peace activists know there are no winners, and the losers are the thousands who have died in Iran and throughout the region, and the millions who face energy and fertilizer shortages – especially in Asia.
If you found this interesting or informative, please like or share.
Leave a comment to explain your vote (paid subscribers)
Last week’s poll results
Last week we looked at the NDP’s new federal leader; Avi Lewis. In particular, his policies opposed to huge increases to military spending, which will severely threaten social programs.
In previous articles we have discussed the public’s support for military spending increases, according to polls.
In light of this, I asked you, “Is opposing PM Carney’s military spending boost a wise political move for the NDP?”
More people than usual took the poll, with over 4-out-of-5 people (86%) saying they thought it was a good political move for the NDP to oppose PM Carney’s military spending boost. Some said no (6%) and the remainder were unsure or didn’t know (9%).
If there IS a PERMANENT cease-fire, sending military would just be a waste of money, so it would look like a provocation. In WW III, the US is the axis. One should not be seen consorting with them.
Also, it is an absurd precedent for Canada to approve of oil-rich nations being attacked illegally, especially after having been threatened. Being polite should not extend to being doormats.
Prime Minister Carney began his messaging on the war with an unconditional endorsement of the USA's objectives. That was a poor response. Since then, he has become increasingly critical of the war, and has turned into a ceasefire advocate. Now he is calling for the current declared ceasefire to include Lebanon. He has also made it clear that Canada will not be a participant in the war, while intimating that our country could undertake a supporting role as a peacemaker. This is a mixed record, but at least he is now moving in the right direction.