US exit dilemma

2026-03-14 - 23:13

THE past two weeks have fundamentally altered the strategic landscape of the Middle East and for the United States and Israel, the war they initiated against Iran has produced a cascade of consequences that look very different from the swift victory they anticipated. What began as a decapitation strike, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and approximately 40 other leaders, was intended to cripple Iran’s nuclear program and demonstrate overwhelming military superiority. Instead, it has triggered a conflict that is exposing the vulnerabilities of the world’s sole superpower and shifting the region’s centre of gravity. The most immediate and glaring loss for the United States has been the erosion of its status as an invincible superpower. For decades, Washington guaranteed the security of Gulf Arab nations through a “security umbrella” of advanced bases and state-of-the-art technology. That guarantee has been shattered. Field reports indicate that installations once described as impregnable fortresses have become vulnerable targets. The AN/FPS-132 early warning radar at Qatar’s Al Udeid Air Base was damaged, paralyzing surveillance capabilities, while the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain has been struck by missiles, disrupting command and control. The loss of a radar for a $300 million THAAD battery in Jordan, the first such combat loss for that system, symbolizes a deeper failure of the defensive paradigm the US has sold to its partners for decades. The Arab nations, Washington was protecting, are now questioning the value of the partnership. Economically, the war has handed Iran a powerful lever over global trade, which it has used with devastating effect. The threat to the Strait of Hormuz, through which about a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil passes, is no longer theoretical. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has reported a staggering 97% drop in ship traffic through the strait. This blockade has sent shockwaves through the global economy. Oil prices have surged past $116 a barrel, shipping costs have soared by over 90% and the UN warns that higher energy and transport costs will intensify cost-of-living pressures worldwide, particularly hitting vulnerable developing nations. This shift in power is most starkly illustrated by the economics of the battlefield. Iran has executed a strategy of “weapon-exhaustion warfare” with brutal efficiency. By unleashing swarms of cheap Shahed-136 drones, estimated to cost as little as $20,000 each, Tehran has forced the US and its allies to burn through their inventories of interceptor missiles that cost millions. This imbalance, firing “golden bullets at plastic targets”, has placed the US military under unprecedented strain. The Pentagon spent an estimated $5.6 billion on munitions in just the first two days of the war and discussions of a $50 billion supplemental funding request are already underway in Congress. It is a race to see who runs out of munitions first and for the first time, the US is worried it might be the loser. The redirection of American assets to this new front has also had an immediate and detrimental impact on the war in Ukraine. Senator Richard Blumenthal has openly stated that air defence systems and other weapons will become less available for Kyiv as they are diverted to the Middle East, calling the war a “major gift” to Vladimir Putin. This is a remarkable reversal of roles that underscores how overstretched American resources have become. Perhaps the most profound strategic error committed by the US has been its miscalculation regarding Iran’s leadership. The assassination of Ali Khamenei was meant to decapitate the regime, but it has instead replaced an old leader with a younger Mojtaba Khamenei, the late leader’s son. Having forged close ties with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and opposed any engagement with the West for years, he represents a hardline shift. This new generation of leadership, backed by a military that sees this as an existential fight, is not interested in surrender. They are fighting with a conviction that this is the final confrontation with the US, a belief that aligns with apocalyptic elements of Islamic prophecy and makes them ready to sustain immense losses. Given this reality, the United States is desperately seeking an honourable exit, but Iran is in no mood to grant one. Washington is attempting to move the goalposts, redefining “victory” not as regime change, but as the neutralization of Iran’s ability to threaten its neighbours with ballistic missiles. This shift risks friction with Israel, which still seeks the total collapse of the Tehran regime. The way out for the US is not through further escalation, but through a pragmatic acceptance that the Iranian regime will survive. The only viable path is to leverage the military pressure applied so far to negotiate a new, stringent containment deal that freezes Iran’s missile programs and nuclear ambitions, which is a difficult proposition once the Fatwa barring it has also been buried with the supreme leader. This would allow Washington to declare that its objective of “defanging” Iran has been met, while extracting itself from a quagmire before its status as a superpower is further diminished and its domestic political costs become unbearable. The alternative is a prolonged war of attrition that plays directly into Iran’s hands. Pakistan has ties with both Washington and Tehran and is well-positioned to act as a mediator. The de-escalation of tensions is in Islamabad’s direct interest. It can provide a reliable pathway for covert communication. But Pakistan needs to be very careful. Mediation risks further escalating tensions and alienating one party. It cannot act as a mediator without the explicit request of both sides in the conflict. —The writer is an international law expert and an internationally accredited arbitrator and mediator. (shozab2727@gmail.com)