From conflict to calculations

The Iranian regime needs to adapt internally and diplomatically, but if regime change is overdue anywhere, it is in Israel

- BY K.C. SINGH

The 12-day Iran-Israel war seemed to escalate when Iran launched missiles at America's Al Udeid base in Qatar, in retaliation for the US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Israel had already damaged the last two, but Fordow, embedded in a mountain, remained outside its capabilities to destroy. Panic spread across the Gulf nations as many shut their airspace.

The denouement came quicker than anticipated. US President Donald Trump's social media post declared that both combatant nations accepted a ceasefire. Apparently, Iran had forewarned the US and Qatar before launching missiles, enabling interinterception. Iran also reassured Qatar that only the US base was targeted, with safety of Qatari residents ensured, in view of their traditionally close relations. This confirmed that the Iranian attack was symbolic, to satisfy domestic opinion and safeguard global standing as a nation that defied US pressure. Fortuitously, the US also treated the attack as a necessary face-saver for Iran.

Wars or conflicts end in multiple ways. One, if either side capitulates, like the Pakistani military in erstwhile East Bengal in 1971, with India victorious. Two, if one combatant quits after a prolonged engagement without a clear outcome. The US did that in 1973 in Vietnam, and again in Afghanistan in 2016. In both cases, it was preceded by talks. Finally, if the combatants are stalemated due to closely matched offensive capabilities and their primary objectives mostly achieved. A ceasefire becomes more desirable than an endless war of attrition with limited likely additional gains. Israel and Iran reached that point when the US mediated.