Escalating Threats—and a Touch of Irony

The Iranian government threatened to destroy water desalination plants in the Persian Gulf countries if the United States begins destroying its energy facilities. As a result, millions of people would face a horrific situation—assuming water production were severely disrupted—since the region’s natural water resources are insufficient to meet their needs.

With this threat—or at least by carrying it out—the Iranians would violate international agreements that prohibit attacks on infrastructure vital to civilians, such as drinking water systems and dams. In doing so, they would act just as the Russians have in Ukraine—without facing any particularly serious consequences. And they continue to do so.

Thus, in Putin’s “three-day special operation,” a precedent has been created that encourages the Iranians to act in a questionable manner. At the same time, it demonstrates the toothlessness of international law when it comes to protecting civilians.

* * *

The Houthi rebels in Yemen are one of the most significant proxy actors of Iran against other states and their governments in the region. However, they have been remarkably passive during the attack against their “patron”—perhaps purely out of self-preservation.

Now, however, the Houthis have announced their intention to join the war on the side of the Iranian government if the United States or Israel use the Red Sea against it. In practice, however, the Houthis’ capabilities would likely be limited to harassing ships traveling by sea.

Unfortunately, even that alone would have significant economic consequences for global trade. And therefore—if that were to happen—the rest of the world might have to consider whether the time has finally come to take real action to dismantle the terrorist Houthi regime.

* * *

If the two threats discussed above are extremely serious, the third case that caught my attention is rather amusing. I am referring to Russia’s threat to halt gasoline exports abroad. This comes after its oil infrastructure has been repeatedly destroyed—most recently even in ports along the coast of the Gulf of Finland.

Of course, the Russian threat shows that they have understood how to make use of the situation. They are scoring points by turning necessity into a virtue. It remains to be seen, however, whether this threat will have any impact on the course of the war, in which Ukraine has clearly gained the upper hand this year and now appears likely to emerge as the victor.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran – The End of Theocracy or the Beginning of Civil War?
Peace in Ukraine Would Be a Risk to Putin
Houthi Leaders Risk Their Lives to Cling to Power

Finnish Ex-Military Chief: U.S. Likely Halted Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

Former Commander of the Finnish Defence Forces Jarmo Lindberg has commented on last night’s U.S. strikes on Iran. According to him, Trump likely achieved his objective: halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Lindberg stated that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program, even though some have doubted its existence. This is because, “nuclear enrichment facilities are not needed for normal nuclear power plant operations. The type of nuclear material used in energy-producing power plants, like those in Finland, cannot be used to make bombs. Separate enrichment plants are required to produce material suitable for nuclear warheads.”

Regarding the U.S. Air Force strike itself, Lindberg said that “a very limited strike was carried out against three specific targets—bunkers located deep inside Iran. In addition, only a small number of precision weapons were used, such as B-2 stealth bombers, MOP bombs, and cruise missiles.”

Lindberg also noted that Iran had no real chance to defend itself from the strike because Israel had crippled its air defenses by destroying radar systems and surface-to-air missile batteries. Thus, “Iran essentially had no eyes to see it coming. And even if it had seen it, it wouldn’t have had the means to intercept it.”

As for Iran’s ability to respond to the U.S. strike, Lindberg sees it as limited. Furthermore, the U.S. has prepared for possible retaliation by moving its ships away from ports near Iran, meaning “there are currently few viable targets for the ayatollahs’ military or missiles.”

Iran could also “declare the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and threaten to attack maritime traffic passing through it. Since a significant portion of the world's oil supply flows through that strait, such a move would immediately spike oil prices, which the markets would then react to.”

However, it is also certain that closing the Strait of Hormuz would lead to retaliatory actions by the United States and likely also by the United Kingdom and France—actions against which Iran has virtually no effective weapon other than fanatical religious fervor. While that could result in some kind of suicide attacks, possibly against civilian populations, “from a military standpoint, their significance is negligible.”

For this reason, Lindberg believes the greatest focus now shifts to the future of Iran’s clerical regime. In other words, “what will their reactions and fate be in a situation where the United States has entered the war.”

For my part, I hope their reaction would be a flight to Moscow and leaving power to the Iranian opposition. Or alternatively, a revolution by the opposition, followed by proper punishment of the ayatollahs for the sins of past decades.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values
Will Power Change Hands in Iran?
A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine

A Quick Israeli Success in Iran Would Be Crucial for Ukraine

Israel's attacks today demonstrated that Iran has no means to defend itself against the Jewish state's assaults. Nor does it have the capability to inflict significant damage on Israel, as the mullahs’ failed counterattack attempt showed.

As a consequence, the conflict between Israel and Iran will be militarily uninteresting. However, it is clear that if Iran even partially closes the Strait of Hormuz, the global market price of crude oil will rise — and this, in turn, will have an indirect impact, particularly on the war in Ukraine.

This is because the price increase would result in money flowing into Russia’s war chest from oil sales more rapidly than it currently does. And this would lead to two consequences, both of which would be detrimental to Ukraine.

The first would naturally be that the increased oil revenues would provide more funding for arming Putin’s military, thus strengthening Russia’s invading army. The second is that the burden of war on Russian civilians would ease, thereby reducing the risk of a collapse in support for Putin’s regime — and thus the risk of a potential popular uprising.

For this reason, it is to be hoped that Israel achieves its objectives in Iran as quickly as possible. And if the mullahs attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, its openness must be ensured by the actions of other countries — especially the United States.

For this reason, it is especially interesting to closely follow the war between Israel and Iran over the weekend and the early part of next week. And perhaps even to hope that the Iranian people will grow tired of their Islamist regime and overthrow it through a popular uprising — just as the Shah's regime collapsed 46 years ago. And as a result, shut down Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Iran Rejects Direct Nuclear Talks with U.S., Calls Them Pointless
Can Peace Emerge from Horrific War Crimes?
Israel’s Strike on Iran: Ripple Effects for the Middle East, Russia, and Global Stability