Conflict & peace

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 →

Attack on Iran: unclear motives, unknown outcomes & energy vulnerability

/ Dan Smith / 1 Comment

In my previous post about the onslaught on Iran by Israel and the USA, I used the metaphor of a coin toss to say how hard it is to forecast the outcome. I left it to others to work out the motive for the attack, unpicking the incoherent contradictions in what the US President has said, weighing the various statements and retractions others have made. Instead, I pondered the question of regime change. It was once derided as a US goal by Trump but now he has adopted. Or maybe not since some of his recent statements boil down to saying the war is won though it is not over.

Anyway, as to regime change, I saw three possible outcomes: the hoped for democratic transition; an even more repressive state; and civil war. News that the CIA has been getting ready to support a Kurdish insurgency makes it seem that civil war is the likeliest.

Continue reading →

Attack on Iran: Israel and the USA have flipped the coin – where and how will it land?

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

When the USSR invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, assassinated President Hafizullah Amin and installed a more compliant government, it kicked off an era of war and terror that has not ended 47 years later. When the USA and allies invaded Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003, it initiated a period of war and terror that may now be coming to an end with a degree of political stability and less violence in the last two years. When France and the UK with seemingly reluctant support from the USA intervened in Libya in 2011, weakening the rule of Muammar Gaddafi so insurgents found and killed him, it opened a period of war and chaos that has produced a fragile balance between two competing governments and intermittent violent conflict between them.  

Continue reading →

Sustainable Defence in a Challenging Environment

/ Dan Smith / Leave a comment

For Europe, responding to insecurity and responding to ecological disruption are both era-defining challenges. In June last year, NATO decided to respond to the insecurity that member states and many, many citizens feel by increasing military spending to 5% of annual economic output, with a minimum of 3.5% devoted to what they called ‘core’ security, and up to 1.5% for cyber security, infrastructure and suchlike. No comparable pledge has been made for responding to the ecological crisis. Far from it, European (and other) governments currently seeming to be turning their backs on the green agenda.

There is an obvious risk that national security will divert and drain energy and resources away from other policies and priorities, such as welfare, health and education as well as the environment. And a further risk that the emphasis on national security and building up the military will have negative effects on the natural environment and accelerate ecological disruption.

Those are the risks. Does it have to be that way?

Continue reading →