Democracy: foundation of peace, asset for security

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

Thirty-plus years of high-level scholarly research has shown that democracy enhances security and security likewise contributes to democracy. The research shows that democracies are vulnerable to a range of insidious challenges from hostile forces but they have inherent resources to resist these challenges. 

The thing is, those resources need to be mobilised to defend and deepen democracy. Otherwise we will sit and watch and moan as drip by drip, freedom by freedom, biased court case and bad law by biased court case and bad law, our democratic rights leak away.

If democracy ends, that’s how it will be – not with a bang but a whimper.

Continue reading →

The Gulf crisis and the limits of power

/ Dan Smith / 1 Comment

On February 28, President Trump broke off negotiations with Iran and, together with Israel, launched air and missile strikes on Iran. Trump never stated the objectives with crystal clarity but before too long it was clear the war was not going to meet them. Its impact nonetheless goes wide and deep. Countries with no role in the war are on the receiving end of price shocks, and food insecurity has risen sharply. The war has also dealt a severe blow to US prestige, its influence and power. Because of that, this is potentially a moment marking a decisive shift from one era to another, from US predominance to – well, whatever comes next because that is a long way short of being clear.

What is clear is that the war on Iran amounts, among other things, to a self-inflicted blow to US power.

I address that issue in an article for International Politics and Society, the online journal of the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung in Germany. The article is available here in English and here in German.

War in the Gulf: provisional balance sheet, part 3

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

Historians seem to expend a lot of time and energy arguing back and forth over many years on the balance of gains and losses in a war. The arguments tend to be plagued by uncertainties over data and definitions from beginning to end. History takes its own time to unfold, so it may not be until some time after the event that the results really start to become clear. Identifying a winner means defining what winning means. But the victor in the war may pay such a high price that they follow up by losing the ensuing peace. Not for nothing has the term Pyrrhic victory entered the lexicon, meaning a victory achieved at excessive cost – winning the battle but losing the war. It happens all too often and is one of many reasons why war should not be taken lightly. 

With such reservations in mind, this post is the third in a series aiming at an initial assessment of gains and losses in the Gulf war, looking at governments that were involved yet wholly or largely non-combatant.

Continue reading →

War in the Gulf: provisional balance sheet, part 2

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

The question is whether any government has benefitted from the Gulf War that began on 28 February when Israel and the USA attacked Iran. How do the costs and benefits stack up politically? Whose national interests have been enhanced by the war so far?

Continue reading →

War in the Gulf: a provisional balance sheet

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

In the space between peace and war that the Gulf crisis has now entered, and from which it may exit at any point, if only for a brief time, maybe this is a convenient moment to think about what has been gained and what has been lost so far. 

Continue reading →

War in the Gulf: Is it over? What’s the result?

/ Dan Smith / 2 Comments

There are reports in several outlets that Iran and the US are getting close to agreement on a memorandum to end the war. The reports are based, so it’s said, on leaks from the Pakistani team that is mediating the Iran-US discussions. So what we are seeing might be an effort by the mediators to move things along a bit. Or it may be a trial balloon at the request of one side or both to gauge reaction not only from the adversary but also, and more importantly, from their respective home fronts. Or we could just be hearing weightless rumours.

Only time will tell. We have heard so much rubbish in the claims and counter-claims from both sides that a bit of caution is justified. But being cautious about doubting the reports as well as believing them, it makes sense to take a closer look.

Continue reading →

War on Iran: on-again, off-again?

/ Dan Smith / 1 Comment

There are three current ceasefires in the Middle East. 

  • One is between Israel and the USA on one side and Iran on the other; each side accuses the other of violating it. 
  • One is between Israel and Lebanon. This is odd because Israel was not fighting the government of Lebanon but the forces of Hezbollah. It began by opposing talks between the two governments but has said it will respect the ceasefire as long as it is not one-sided. Israel has accused Hezbollah of violating the ceasefire and the Lebanese army has reported Israeli violations. The ceasefire expires on 26 April.
  • And the third is in Gaza where, six months after it was first signed, Israeli attacks continue, killing at least 32 Palestinians in April (in a total of at least 738 since the ceasefire was declared on 10 October 2025).

In short, the ceasefire in the war of Israel and the USA against Iran is not unique in its complexity and uncertainty. Ceasefires are almost always tricky and routinely fragile, reflecting the dynamics of war as much as the possibilities of peace. This one has proven to be no exception to the rule. Within half a day, the parties and mediators were disputing what was agreed, whether the ceasefire was supposed to include Lebanon, what would happen with Iran’s enriched uranium, and what would happen with the Strait of Hormuz. 

Continue reading →

The war on Iran: from the ceasefire to the off-ramp?

/ Dan Smith / 2 Comments

The ceasefire in the US-Israeli war on Iran brings cautious relief. The bombing, the missiles, the destruction and the killing can stop, which is unreservedly good. But ceasefires are tricky things. They reflect the dynamics of war as much as peace and the threats each side holds over the other persist. Israel and the USA can unleash physically destructive forces Iran cannot match. Iran can unleash economically destructive forces to which the USA has no viable response except more destruction.

That Iran’s strategy is viable is clear every time Trump blinks when the oil price jumps or the stock market slumps. And that strategy has given Iran the strategic initiative, which Trump’s threat to erase Iranian civilisation does not take away. 

Big blustery threats and swear words from Trump aside, what can we see unfolding amid the thick fog of this war? This is the second in a series of blog posts sketching out a few pointers I see to what is happening today and what may happen tomorrow and the day after. 

Continue reading →

The war on Iran: signals emerging from the noise

/ Dan Smith / 2 Comments

Through the nonsensical miasma of illogical, ahistorical, untrue and self-contradictory utterances by the American president and his administration about their war on Iran, each one more ridiculous than the last, a few things are starting to stand out with some degree of clarity. They are pointers of a kind to today, tomorrow and after that. This post and the next couple take a look at a few of them. This one focuses on the US build-up, the search for a way out, and the Strait of Hormuz. It’s not comprehensive in any way, just what I can figure out at the moment.

Continue reading →

Thoughts about a nuclear-free and ecologically sustainable world order

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

This is a difficult time to be talking about disarmament or even arms control. The geopolitical context is about as unhelpful as it could possibly be and it is hard to imagine circumstances in which the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is ratified by all the world’s states. And yet, talking about disarmament and imagining a nuclear-free world is what I do in an article newly published by the Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. To make a challenging ask yet more demanding, my argument is that we – humankind – need a new order that will guard not only against the existential nuclear threat but also against the dangers arising from severe ecological disruption.  

What follows is a short version distilled from the first draft of the article. Among other things, it leaves out some of the political philosophy. For the full version, follow the link.

Continue reading →