New strikes in Iran war: what comes next?
The US has launched a new wave of attacks on military targets in Iran. The US Regional Command said the aim was to weaken Tehran's ability to attack merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has responded with counter-attacks on US bases in the Gulf region. Commentators discuss strategies and risks.
Military pressure sometimes the only option
Such conflicts cannot be resolved by diplomatic means alone, Der Tagesspiegel argues:
“The use of weapons during a ceasefire is considered a breach of the law. However, lasting peace in the Gulf and a return to reliable oil and gas supplies at pre-war prices will only be possible if Trump puts military pressure on the mullahs and forces them to clear the Strait of Hormuz. The Europeans should take this lesson to heart, not least because of Ukraine. ... There, too, the hope that Vladimir Putin will voluntarily abide by what has been negotiated is misguided. He has broken almost every agreement. He, too, will only respect a peace treaty for Ukraine to the extent that he is forced to do so by sustained military pressure.”
Tehran's ambitious goals
For La Repubblica, this is a tactical move on Iran's part:
“Control of the Strait of Hormuz is merely a means to an end, but Iran's strategic objective is far more ambitious: to assert its role as a regional power across the entire Gulf by military means. The Revolutionary Guards aim to demonstrate not just that they remain capable of striking anywhere despite the American attacks. Above all, they want to make clear that Donald Trump is not prepared to go to war to protect the Sunni monarchies. It is this strategic vision that lies behind the Revolutionary Guards' escalation.”
Possibility of miscalculation
At present, Iran is still managing to stoke regional conflicts through asymmetric warfare, according to Jutarnji list:
“Tehran is in a stronger position because the US attacks have no bearing on its ability to retaliate or on the regime's survival. As long as the attacks continue, the discontented Iranian people won't organise demonstrations. ... Right now Iran is controlling the dynamics of the latent war, which is characterised by constant skirmishes; yet wars rarely unfold as those involved want them to. ... The US attacks have not toppled the regime, but they have inflicted enormous damage on the Islamic Republic's military capabilities. Tehran could miscalculate and find itself in a situation where it can no longer respond asymmetrically.”
Both sides need an agreement
Mladá fronta dnes stresses the need for a peaceful solution on both sides:
“With the US mid-term elections just around the corner, time is running out. A war is too risky for Trump, and the Iranians know it. The president will probably ultimately opt for a resumption of the ceasefire and negotiations. But the other side must not reject this either. The Economist wrote that most Iranians want economic recovery and an easing of sanctions, not the resumption of the US naval blockade and another war. ... So paradoxically, it's in the long-term interests of both countries to find a way out.”
We're all funding the mullahs
The Salzburger Nachrichten criticises Trump:
“The Strait of Hormuz, through which around a quarter of the crude oil and a fifth of the liquefied natural gas traded worldwide has passed to date, will probably no longer be passable for free for some time to come. We will all end up paying this toll indirectly through higher prices. And thus involuntarily help to finance the mullahs' regime. The upshot? By launching this war against Iran, Donald Trump has done us all a disservice and needlessly handed the mullahs new leverage. ... The forces of reason must now exert pressure. ... Because everyone stands to benefit from a ceasefire that actually holds: the moderate politicians in the US and Iran, the global economy, the civilian population in the Middle East – and all of us as consumers.”