Read Also

We cannot say at present what the new permanent status in the Middle East will be following the failure of the US and Israel’s Iranian venture, or indeed whether such a status will emerge at all. However, the decision to avoid escalation and the ‘destruction of an entire civilisation’ allows us to draw several conclusions and make some assumptions regarding the future not only of the region, but of the world as a whole.

Firstly, everyone has once again been able to see just how limited the capabilities of superpowers are when their vital interests are not at stake. Secondly, international politics continues to move in a direction where a general military catastrophe is becoming a likely prospect. And this drift may continue for quite some time yet.

Once it became clear that the US was unable to break Tehran’s resistance and force it to reopen the Strait of Hormuz using conventional weapons, Washington was left with the choice of either backing down or playing its nuclear cards. The US government did not dare to do this and, apparently, had no intention of doing so from the outset, no matter how fantastical the threats from Washington might have sounded.

Now that the conflict has effectively been halted on Tehran’s terms, observers conclude that the Iranian campaign has ended in a fiasco for the United States. They failed to defeat a far weaker opponent and to protect their clients in the Persian Gulf, who have suffered greatly from Iranian counterattacks over the past month.

At the same time, unlike in Ukraine, the US was waging war thousands of kilometres away from its own territory. So even the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would not have caused any disruption to the daily lives of American citizens. But the grounds for taking such extreme measures proved to be clearly insufficient. And this distinguishes the current situation from that which arose in the summer of 1945, when the Americans dropped atomic bombs on Japan.

At that time, the world war was coming to an end, and America’s real enemy was the Soviet Union – halting its advance was a matter of vital importance for the US. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (August 6) literally ‘sealed with blood’ the decisions of the Potsdam Peace Conference (which concluded on August 2) to ensure that the USSR would not even consider revising its outcomes by force.

In the case of Iran, the stakes were not nearly as high, even in theory. In other words, for Washington, playing with escalation to the limit was clearly not worth the risk. However, the consequences for the US will be very serious, as it has become clear to everyone that their ‘security guarantees’ are a sham and that the Americans will not defend those who pay them for protection by any means necessary.

It is evident that this approach extends to Europe as well, where countries along the western perimeter of Russia’s borders find themselves in a vulnerable position. For Finland or the Baltic republics, impunity regarding Russia’s interests had become the norm, as they were confident that the US would protect them. Now, such confidence can no longer exist.

It must be borne in mind, however, that Donald Trump and his administration are not politicians but businessmen, for whom national priorities – power and prestige – are not values in themselves, divorced from individual or collective material gain. The apocalyptic rantings of the White House occupant and his team would sound far more convincing and frightening were it not for their repeatedly demonstrated willingness to compromise.

It is clear to everyone what the destruction of Iran would mean for the entire Middle East and the global energy market. And Washington is completely unprepared for such a scenario; it is not in their interests. This means that other powers are basing their policies towards the US on this premise. China is setting the prime example here, but Russia is not far behind – much attention is paid to discussions of mutual benefit and investment during talks with US representatives.

Should Trump be succeeded as US leader by a figure of the same ilk – Vice-President Vance or Secretary of State Rubio – one can be certain that they, too, will not risk losing out on benefits for the sake of purely political interests. And this will continue until the US either loses its standing in the world or tries to hold on to something whilst already in a far less advantageous, practically disastrous position. And that is when the risk will arise that the game will truly be worth the candle for them, and we will all have to endure some very emotional moments.

PhD in Political Science, Research Director at the Centre for Comparative European and International Studies (CCEIS) at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), Programme Director of the Valdai Discussion Club, and member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC)