The world media, enthusiastically discussing the dramatic events that are unfolding these days in the Middle East, give rather contradictory forecasts regarding the prospects for the further development of the situation, up to versions that are directly mutually exclusive. In fact, the proposed scenarios, if we discard particular ones, boil down to three main ones. The confrontation in the Persian Gulf that has reached its boiling point may result in a global military conflict, which is quite capable of escalating into the Third World War. There is also a chance that it will be the beginning of the end of the “unipolar world” and the current not very fair order in it.
However, despite the rocket explosions and extremely belligerent statements voiced on both sides of the front line, quite a lot of skeptics believe that, by and large, at the global level policy absolutely nothing will change.
Apocalypse from trump
Is there a possibility that a “spark” of armed confrontation between the United States and Iran will ignite a flame that will subsequently cover, if not the whole world, then most of it? Alas, theoretically yes. In any case, the words of the Prime Minister of Iraq, Adel Abdel Mahdi, who announced yesterday about the danger of a "destructive and comprehensive war", have quite concrete reasons. In the event of further escalation, Tehran’s threats to attack not only “targets within the United States,” but also, at least, the United Arab Emirates and Israel, just mean the intention to withdraw the conflict from the “bipolar” plane, inflating it to the regional level with an eye on the world. Even the Europeans desperately trying to stay away from the Middle East mess, willfully be forced to intervene, facing the impending fuel crisis. And it will inevitably come if oil fields flare up in the region, tankers begin to sink, and the Strait of Hormuz is tightly closed. Saudi Arabia, by the way, has already stopped oil transit through it ... For our country, the prospect of becoming a “showdown” between Tel Aviv and Tehran of Syria presents a more than serious danger of being drawn into hostilities, while fulfilling the aforementioned threat, the almost inevitable. In a word, it doesn’t seem enough to anyone who’s called. Well, if you take into account more than reasonable assumptions about the presence of nuclear weapons in Israel itself, the picture emerges and is completely gloomy.
On the other hand, such an apocalyptic scenario, even with its minimum implementation (without atomic strikes) categorically does not suit either of the main participants in the conflict, or those whom it will certainly affect. Yes, the United States can afford to give a damn about the safety and security of Middle East oil - they really are no more dependent on energy exports, turning into pure importers. Rise in prices for "black gold"? So it will not only enrich the US oil industry, but it is also likely that it will allow them to carry out a new stage of the “shale revolution”, which has recently started to decline pretty much due to the low profitability of this production method due to low oil prices. On the other hand, all this, as they say, is a double-edged sword: an expensive barrel will definitely play into Russia's hands. Moreover, the cessation of energy supplies from the Middle East will open up new prospects for our exporters, which Washington does not smile at all. But the main thing, however, is not even this, but the US domestic political agenda. After the assassination of General Suleymani and the victorious cannibalistic statements of Donald Trump that followed him, there was no general patriotic rush in the ranks of American citizens. But anti-war demonstrations, albeit not too massive, were. It is not surprising - according to a Reuters / Ipsos poll conducted in the USA on January 6-7, Trump's cowboy antics against Iran categorically do not approve of more than half of the respondents. As for the higher echelons of the Washington politicum, even such senators as Lindsay Graham and Mike Lee, who traditionally supported him in all endeavors, called for the head of the White House to “refuse revenge” and “go on de-escalation”. Americans don’t want war.
What is the strength in, brother?!
No matter how the situation develops in the future, it is impossible to refuse Iran alone: it was almost the first country that responded to the Americans with their flagrant atrocities with something more serious than tearful tantrums at the UN, expressing "sincere indignation" and spitting on the high fence of the US embassy. They promised to strike back - and hit. How, what and why - the third thing. But the fact of an armed response is obvious. In any case, it looks much more adequate than our reaction to the Tomahawks, the showers raining on Syria or the IDF’s air raids on it. So what?! The world did not collapse; the “crushing blow to 52 goals” promised earlier by Trump did not happen. No "$ 2 trillion worth of armaments" have fallen on Iraq, and, apparently, will not collapse in the future. In an appeal to the American nation, which the world waited with bated breath for almost a day after the IRGC attack on US military bases, the owner of the White House speaks exclusively of “powerful sanctions” and readiness for reconciliation. In fact, a precedent has been created: the United States can be fought back! Well, at the very least, to beat their warrior hand in hand for absolutely utterly impudent antics. This, mind you, does not mean at all that a not-so-adequate “leader of the American nation” will soon arrange for Tehran some new “retaliation action”. But the fact that they didn’t hit it right there, which is called “from all trunks”, says a lot. It would be here to put pressure on the "world hegemon", which for the first time in a long time has turned from an impunity to a raider into an object of attack, and here it would put it in its place! It’s a great idea, but ... In order to do this, we need a certain coalition, not necessarily formalized, an alliance of states ready to come forward as a united front for the dismantling of the “unipolar world” that has gone so far as everyone with its capital in Washington.
The strength here should be not only in truth, but also in unity, readiness to go to the end, not giving the back, supporting and protecting each other. But who will unite with whom? Well, let's say Russia and China ... Let's be honest, so far in this situation the only thing they had enough gunpowder was to jointly block the UN Security Council statement on the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad on December 31 last year. Celestial, for whose economic interests Trump’s Middle East gamble is hitting what’s called up, so far, in a disciplined manner, has evacuated China National Petroleum Corp. employees from Iraq out of sin. What will result in even stricter sanctions against Tehran announced by the White House for China is better not to think. Chinese experts and analysts are already talking about the “extremely negative” consequences for its oil imports today, seeing in the unfolding conflict a threat to Beijing’s initiatives on “trans-regional cooperation” not only in the Middle East, but also in Central and South Asia and even North Africa. “We will have to leave again!” - The Chinese lament, recalling the 2.6 billion dollars lost under similar circumstances in Syria. And yet they leave ... With whom else to unite? With turkey? Well, at least I didn’t have to fight with these. The gas pipeline was launched, and good. An ally from Ankara is one more. The remaining regional “players” without the support of world powers are unlikely to overcome even the “ousting of the United States from the Middle East” proclaimed by Tehran. In this case, there is no need to stutter about global changes in the world order.
Not a crisis, but a political spectacle?
The most interesting thing is that such an assumption was made precisely in the American media. Specifically - CNN reporters. They are sure that the events that kept the whole of humanity in extreme tension for several days were initially “staged” by Washington and Tehran, who were looking for a way out of the protracted conflict situation with minimal “loss of face” on both sides. This version is based on the opinion of officials from the Washington administration, directly indicating that the Iranian attacks were planned and carried out in such a way as to cause minimal damage to US facilities. For example, missiles could easily “cover” the American consulate in Erbil, but not one of them got there. Yes, and evidence that Baghdad was warned of impending strikes ahead of time suggests quite similar thoughts. It is clear that this information immediately became known to the US military, who hastened to get out of the shelling and did not particularly worry about its results. Washington today is convinced that Iran has only “sent a signal”, saying that it can cause significant damage to the Americans, but so far prefers not to. Judging by President Trump’s rather unexpected first reaction to the attack: “Everything is in order, everything is under control!”, And based on the statements made by him in his address to the nation that followed yesterday, this was exactly how it was. By the way, the OPEC’s perfect equanimity, whose confidence in the stability of oil supplies was voiced by the Minister of Energy of the UAE, Suheil al-Mazrui after the rocket bombardment of American bases, also testifies in favor of this version. Consequently, one should not expect a sharp aggravation of the situation, an outbreak of hostilities, or bloodshed. It is possible that even the new “nuclear deal” Trump so cares about will also be concluded. Why not?
So, all the disturbances that shook the world’s information space in recent days were just a storm in a glass of water, which has no consequences? Not certainly in that way. The consequences, of course, will be, and the most diverse. For example, in Tel Aviv they have already announced their ardent desire to purchase another fifty F-35s. With a fright, obviously ... This is for the American defense industry, of course, a plus. But here are questions being asked today in the USA as to how even one Iranian missile could hit American military targets, where the vaunted Patriot looked “and whether they were there at all”, will definitely “add points” to our air defense systems on world arms markets, which after such shakes are inevitably activated. The House of Representatives of the US Congress intends to curtail Trump's powers to use force in the same Iran - this is also not bad news. However, perhaps the main result, which is not at all joyful for the entire “collective West”, is that the next crisis showed that something still “died out” at NATO ... And, it seems, this happened with the notorious 5 article of the organization’s charter, to which some naive “friends” of Russia in the same Baltic region continue to pray, as to some kind of holy scripture. In fact, in accordance with this paragraph, after a missile strike was launched against the military bases of one of the members of the North Atlantic Alliance, if not all of its members, then at least the majority of them, were obliged to rush for help. There it was. In reality, we are witnessing the exact opposite process. Almost everybody declares their intentions to get out of the same Iraq as quickly and as far as possible: from Germany to Finland and Slovenia. It seems that most of all the USA managed to scare not Iran, but its own allies ...
Crises like the Iranian one do not pass without leaving a trace for humanity. It is hardly worth waiting for the end of the world or updating the world order in the near future. We just took a few more steps. To know only - in which direction ...