Strategic reflection on the ongoing Middle East conflict and broader economic repercussions

DAR ES SALAAM: WAR frequently commences with assurance and concludes with bewilderment. From the inception, what appears to be decisive leadership can rapidly transform into strategic entanglement.

Reflecting critically and strategically, this pattern is exemplified with unsettling clarity by the current crisis in the Middle East.

For months, numerous military strategists and scholars of international relations have cautioned that a confrontation with Iran would be neither straightforward nor contained.

Iran is not an isolated state, like some of the lesser adversaries that the United States has faced in the past.

Nevertheless, it seems that those cautionary tales were ignored. The reasoning behind the gamble appeared to be deceptively simple: apply maximum pressure, display military strength and force Iran to retreat.

However, Iran’s response has demonstrated why many experts warned against escalation.

Tehran has widened the theatre of confrontation rather than capitulating. The interruption of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz is the most strategically important development, as any lasting disruption would immediately impact global markets and extend to financial markets.

If asked, I can clearly say Iran has also exhibited the capacity to project force asymmetrically through regional networks, missile systems and drones.

This is precisely the type of conflict environment in which conventional military superiority is rendered less significant.

Having studied history, I can say with confidence that in the contemporary Middle East, wars are seldom waged in a linear fashion.

They propagate horizontally, attracting a multitude of actors and establishing escalation strata that are challenging to manage. This is the point at which the strategic trap intensifies.

In the world of war, backing down becomes politically challenging once a superpower indicates its readiness to employ force.

Strength is anticipated by domestic audiences. Allies anticipate dedication. Resolve is tested by adversaries. Each action generates pressure for the subsequent one, resulting in a cycle of escalation that leaders themselves find difficult to manage.

This dynamic is illustrated by numerous historical examples. From Vietnam to Iraq, wars have frequently been prolonged not due to the desire of leaders, but rather because they were unable to readily reverse course once they had commenced.

This event reminds me of my grandfather’s advice to fear conflict; he told me as a story in 1975 on my birthday. He fought in the Second World War. He saw suffering and the harsh reality of conflict. He told me that those who start a war believe they will win, but when it becomes clear they can’t, it’s hard to accept defeat.

He urged me to try to avoid developing a fondness for conflict as I grew older, in school, at business, as a family man and in any engagement with friends. “War has no eyes, no uncles or aunts,” he said.

Uncomfortable similarities exist in the present circumstance. Political leadership is frequently susceptible to ideological narratives regarding historical destiny and flattery. Judgment may be obscured by appeals to legacy, grandeur and civilisational struggle.

Leaders may begin to perceive themselves as actors in a grand historical drama rather than as prudent custodians of global stability.

In international politics, such psychological dynamics can be perilous. They promote risk-taking while underestimating adversaries’ agency and resilience.

Looking at what is currently unfolding globally and the ongoing war, the equation is further complicated by the internal political pressures within the Middle East.

Occasionally, governments that are confronted with domestic instability discover a strategic advantage in projecting their external strength.

Regional confrontation has the potential to unify fragmented political coalitions and divert public attention from internal disputes.

However, a dangerous spiral may occur when many actors engage in external confrontation to secure their short-term political survival.

A prolonged regional conflict risks escalating from what was initially intended as targeted pressure. The economic repercussions could be significant on their own and especially for the global community. Trade routes are now interrupted by energy shortages and the worldwide economy, already fragile, could be further impacted by geopolitical instability.

The implications are not only imminent for Europe, which is still grappling with energy security challenges, but also for our economies, as they are already beginning to worry about rising energy supply prices.

The repercussions will unquestionably be even more destabilising for developing economies that are reliant on stable energy prices. We all know what happens when there is an increase to energy prices and the spiral effects.

As an analyst and economist, the deeper lesson here is not about a single leader. It relates to a recurring global political pattern of arrogance.

Often, powerful nations assume they can reshape complex regions by force. They overlook the unintended consequences that almost always follow, overestimate their ability to control escalation and underestimate local dynamics and, more specifically, the patriotism among the minority who believe they have no recourse if their country is devastated by short-term ambitions and violence.

ALSO READ: How US-Iran war ripple effects endanger Tanzania’s economic trajectory

Albert Einstein famously remarked, “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”

I would like the world to recognise that no further military machismo demonstrations are required in the Middle East. It necessitates strategic restraint, diplomacy and an acknowledgement that conflicts in this region rarely conclude as their architects anticipate.

If history teaches us anything, it is that international politics is rarely set by enemies acting independently. Most frequently, leaders encounter them on their own.