Israel and the United States had a plan. Iran punched back.
And now the Gulf is reeling, the world is beginning to feel the pain and, as on date, no one in Washington or Tel Aviv appears willing to admit that the punch has landed, notes Prem Panicker, continuing his must-read blog on the war in the Middle East.
George Santayana (I can't spell his full Spanish name, sorry) wrote that 'Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.'
Over time, that pithy line spawned various paraphrases, the most famous of which is 'Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.'
Via the Twitter stream of the brilliant New Yorker cartoonist Tom Toro (external link), I found this version, updated for our times:
The prompt that made me recall this cartoon is repeated mention of 'regime change' across media, particularly in the United States. Don't we ever learn?
In Afghanistan, the US and its allies took heavy losses of men and material; the US alone burned through $3.4 trillion in pursuit of regime change and managed only to replace the Taliban with Taliban V2.
On the back of a cooked-up story that Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, the US began a similar adventure in Iraq.
Again, thousands of lives lost, mostly of the Iraqis, and a further $3 trillion drain on the US exchequer -- for what? Saddam Hussein was killed, yes -- but the misadventure also led to the birth of ISIS and made the region far more volatile than it was before.
And now, Iran. Where regime change was necessitated, the US said, because Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was a brutal dictator.
We will pick the next leader, Trump repeatedly said. And it turns out that after all this effort, after burning through $10 billion and counting (external link) at the time of writing this (and that is just the cost of the munitions the US has burned through), after creating escalating economic chaos around the world, all that the US has managed to do is replace Ali Khamenei with the reportedly far more radical Mojtaba Khamenei.
In a paywalled piece in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof elaborates (external link) on this thought, and on what he calls 'the arrogance of power'.
Cue Santayana, whose aphorism should ideally be carved into the wall of the Oval Office and, indeed, in any space where world leaders gather to make decisions of life and death.
Essential reads:
Reuters has a useful overview (external link) of where the conflict stands as it enters its second week.
The piece notes that what began as a limited US-Israeli campaign has rapidly widened into a regional confrontation, with Iranian attacks on Gulf targets and growing fears of economic fallout and prolonged US involvement.
Reuters also has a visual explainer (external link) detailing how the conflict has spread across the region, with retaliatory strikes hitting targets in multiple Gulf states, and sending oil markets into a tailspin.
The Institute for the Study of War has a detailed operational analysis (external link) tracking US-Israel strikes on Iranian military infrastructure and its internal security apparatus.
It is particularly useful for understanding the military thinking behind the campaign. These reports are updated on a daily basis, which makes this site worth bookmarking for repeat visits.
Rania Abouzeid, writing in a paywalled piece in The New Yorker (external link), widens the lens and points out that the Iran war has now spread to Lebanon.
Hezbollah, which has kept a low profile since a November 2024 ceasefire ended a 14-month war with Israel, is now back and doing battle, despite pleas by the Lebanese government to stay out of the war. And Israel is fighting back.
A first wave of attacks that took in Lebanese territory all the way to Beirut left behind 51 dead at last count.
Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, however, reports that (external link) according to Israeli army sources, the cpounytry's military is struggling to intercept drones coming from Lebanon, and said that it might become necessary to evacuate Israeli communities near the border.
Also in the New Yorker (paywalled), Robin Wright wonders (external link) just where all this is headed, and points out that Donald Trump, with his trademark inconsistency, has asked Iranians to rise up in revolt against the entrenched theocracy, but also said he is prepared to do a deal with a new religious leader.
NB: A note on paywalls: not all the pieces I link to will be freely accessible, and I'm aware how frustrating that can be. Where possible, I'll summarise the key argument so that you are not left staring at a locked door. That said, I'll resist the easy cynicism about paywalls.
Serious reporting and quality long-form analysis costs real money: In salaries, in time, in the kind of institutional backing that allows a journalist to spend days, even weeks on a single story. The outlets that charge for that work are not the villains of the information ecosystem. (The corollary -- don't paywall your content if you are not prepared to expend resources to create actual value -- is equally true.)
Now, to step back and look at the geopolitical consequences: A Time analysis suggests (external link) that one of the early beneficiaries of the conflict may be Russia, which stands to gain from higher oil prices and from Washington's strategic attention shifting away from the war in Ukraine.
This argument finds echoes in the Foreign Policy Research Institute, which explores (external link) how the diversion of American weapons and political focus toward the Middle East could reshape the balance in the Ukraine war.
In The Guardian, Nesrine Malik shifts the focus (external link) from the Washington-Tehran-Tel Aviv triangle to the Gulf monarchies themselves.
Malik argues that Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, often seen as stable petro-States insulated by wealth and by the security guaranteed by the US, are in fact undergoing fragile political transformations.
Their recent strategy has depended on suppressing geopolitics in order to turn themselves into hubs of finance, tourism and global commerce.
The sudden eruption of war, with missiles landing on Gulf infrastructure and airspace closing across the region, threatens that entire model.
The conflict, the author argues, may end up reshaping the Gulf as much as it reshapes Iran.
European analysts have begun asking an even deeper question: even if the military campaign succeeds, what exactly comes next? A thoughtful essay in Le Monde (behind a paywall) points out that battlefield dominance does not automatically translate into political stability.
The more unsettling possibility, Le Monde suggests, is that weakening the Iranian State could produce outcomes such as fragmentation, factional struggles and prolonged instability, that prove harder to manage than the status quo.
This thought, by the way, brings our conversation back to the opening segment, about those who do not learn from history.
Reuters bluntly asks (external link) how many wake-up calls Europe needs before it wakes up to the fact that Washington under Trump is an unreliable ally.
'In the short run, there is little the region can do but suffer and squirm,' says Hugo Dixon for Reuters.
'A principled response would have been to condemn Trump's attack as contrary to international law while at the same time denouncing Iran's nuclear weapons programme. But Europe is too dependent on US military support to do that, especially given the Russian threat. It is also increasingly dependent on American energy since its gas purchases from Moscow are down dramatically and now Qatar is offline.'
And then there is the diplomatic fallout. The Council on Foreign Relations looks at (external link) the uneasy position of European governments, many of whom were caught off guard by Washington's decision and who are now trying to balance alliance politics, energy concerns and fears of wider escalation.
The European Council on Foreign Relations is even more blunt: In a wide-ranging piece (external link) that looks at what has already happened and what could follow, the ECFR concludes that this is a war with no winners.
A useful handle to follow, if you are interested in the war and more broadly, international security, is Professor Robert A Pape (on X) (external link) of the University of Chicago.
In a sharply argued essay (external link) in Foreign Affairs (paywalled), Pape explains Iran's response to the US-Israel strikes as a classic case of 'horizontal escalation'.
Rather than confronting superior military power directly, weaker States widen the battlefield, thus drawing additional countries, economic sectors, and political actors into the conflict.
Iran's missile and drone strikes across the Gulf, its targeting of shipping and energy infrastructure, and the resulting disruption to oil markets are all part of this strategy.
The goal, Pape argues, is not battlefield victory but political leverage: prolong the conflict, raise its economic and diplomatic costs, and shift the contest from military superiority to endurance.
Confirmation of this line of thought comes from Kamal Kharazi, foreign policy advisor to Iran's supreme leader, who tells CNN's Frederik Pleitgen (external link) that there is no room for diplomacy and "only economic pain" will end this war.
Taken together, these pieces sketch the consequences of the war and how they widen in concentric circles, from the battlefield to global energy markets to the strategic competition among great powers.
India Watch:
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar made a suo motu statement in the Lok Sabha on Monday on what the government carefully calls 'the situation in West Asia' -- a formulation that is revealing in itself. Read the full text here (external link).
It is a masterclass in saying much while committing to nothing. The humanitarian mechanics are laid out in excruciating detail: The advisories, the helplines, the 67,000 nationals evacuated, the flights in and out, the Iranian warship docked at Kochi. And for all of this, the government does deserve credit.
But on the central question -- what India's position is on a war of choice launched in violation of international law, that has destabilised a region on which India is critically dependent -- the statement offers nothing beyond formulaic triangulation: 'Dialogue and diplomacy', 'restraint', 'sovereignty and territorial integrity of all state'. It is an exercise in 'both-sides' that ends up taking no side at all.
What makes this particularly striking is the context Jaishankar chose not to mention.
India currently holds the presidency of BRICS. Every other significant member of that grouping -- China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa -- has explicitly condemned the US-Israeli strikes and called for an immediate ceasefire. And to add a layer of irony, Iran is itself a part of BRICS, having joined the bloc on January 1, 2024 as part of a major expansion of membership (there are now 11 countries in this bloc).
India's studied neutrality in Parliament amounts to a de facto abstention at precisely the moment when its presidency gives it both the platform and the moral weight to push for collective action.
Santayana would recognise this, too. Those who won't take a position when it matters are also, in their own way, condemned to watch history repeat.
Meanwhile on the ground, the ramifications of the war are beginning to multiply.
PTI reports that gas crematoriums in Pune have been temporarily closed (external link) following restrictions on the use of LPG components, thanks to the ongoing conflict in the Gulf.
State-run oil marketing companies (OMCs) have suspended (external link) Non-Domestic Non-Exempted (NDNE) LPG dispatches across Punjab, including 19-kg, 47.5-kg, and 425-kg commercial cylinders, effective immediately.
The suspension aims to prioritise propane and butane for domestic LPG supply, ensuring uninterrupted cooking gas for nearly 332 million households.
As a result, hotels, cafés, restaurants, industrial units, and catering services in Punjab are facing severe operational challenges.
Meanwhile, for domestic consumers, refill bookings are now restricted to once every 25 days, to regulate demand.
While the central government has clarified that there is no outright ban (external link) on commercial LPG supply, the directive has been misinterpreted by some, leading to confusion.
Mumbai hoteliers have complained about a shortage of LPG cylinders; so too have restaurateurs (external link) in Pune.
And Bengaluru's hotel body has warned (external link) that there could be a citywide hotel shut down, owing to LPG shortage.
The priority remains on domestic consumers, with refill bookings now restricted to every 25 days to regulate demand.
Livemint (paywalled) reports (external link) that just as India was getting set to go big in world wheat markets at a time when global wheat prices have increased and with the rabi harvest due to hit markets later in March, the uncertainty in shipping has affected potential deals with major importing countries, as also procurement plans with farmers.
'Exporters are wary,' says the report, 'of committing to large shipments, given that freight rates remain volatile and vessel schedules uncertain'.
Top importing destinations for Indian wheat include the UAE, Iraq and South Korea; Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana rank among the top producers.
The United States has asked India (external link) to consider taking more than 100 million barrels of Russian crude that are currently sitting on ships waiting to unload at Chinese ports, IANS reported on Monday.
The request comes as global oil markets grow nervous due to the ongoing tensions involving Iran in the Middle East.
And while on Trump, until three days ago the US president was saying that oil tankers running the Gulf of Hormuz gauntlet would be protected by his warships.
Now, he tells Fox News (external link) that tankers should 'go through the Strait of Hormuz and show some guts, there is nothing to be afraid of...'
'Show some guts'?! Seriously?
Also worth your time...
A pointed essay (external link) in The New Yorker (paywalled) by national-security scholar Tom Nichols (external link) draws a distinction between operational success and strategic clarity.
Nichols argues that the US and Israeli militaries have demonstrated overwhelming tactical competence in the opening phase of the war, quickly establishing dominance in the air and at sea. But, he contends, these battlefield successes are occurring in a strategic vacuum, with the administration offering shifting and sometimes contradictory explanations for what the war is meant to achieve.
The danger, he suggests, is what military historians call 'victory disease', which he says is the tendency of leaders to mistake successful military operations for a coherent strategy. (In this connection, also read on the same platform a piece titled 'Six Days of War, 10 Rationales')(external link).
In a paywalled piece for the Financial Times, historian and energy analyst Daniel Yergin writes (external link) that the Iran war has triggered the biggest disruption of global oil production in history.
Whether it becomes a lasting nightmare for markets and the global economy depends on how long it lasts, Yergin argues, though the global oil and gas system is way more resilient and diversified than it has been for decades. (If you do not have access to FT, Yergin says pretty much the same thing in this chat (external link) with Bloomberg.)
Yergin is a voice well worth listening to. Any reading list on conflict in the Gulf should begin with the story of oil itself.
In his Pulitzer-winning (1992, in the General Nonfiction category) book The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power, Yergin traces how petroleum shaped the modern world, from the birth of the oil industry in the nineteenth century to the great geopolitical struggles of the twentieth.
The book shows how control over oil fields, shipping routes, and prices repeatedly redrew the map of power, particularly in the Middle East.
It reads like a thriller but is grounded in meticulous research, and though it is now over three decades old, it remains one of the clearest guides to understanding why conflicts in the Gulf so often ripple outward into global politics and the world economy.
If you would rather watch, here is a link (external link) to an eight-part YouTube video series based on the book, and narrated by Yergin himself. And if you want to dive even deeper, Yergin's follow-up book, The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World, is worth your time.
Bloomberg's Menaka Doshi has an excellent interview (external link) with President Alexander Stubb of Finland.
Stubb's assessment is stark: The war is escalating rapidly, it lacks a clear strategic endgame and, most worryingly, has no credible mediator capable of stopping it.
He argues that the goals attributed to the US-Israeli campaign, from curbing Iran's nuclear and missile programmes to weakening its proxies or forcing regime change, are unlikely to be achieved through air power alone. (At some point, boots on the ground are going to be needed, and that is when the casualty numbers will spike.)
Stubb also warns that local conflicts increasingly spill into regional and global crises, pointing to the economic shockwaves already hitting trade and energy markets.
With Europe divided on the war, and diplomacy sidelined in what Stubb calls a more 'transactional' global order, he sees little prospect of a quick ceasefire.
Jordan Michael Smith in The New Republic comes up with a 'big frame' geopolitical essay (external link) that steps back from battlefield developments and asks how the war fits into a broader transformation of the international system.
Smith argues that the Iran war is unfolding against a far larger geopolitical shift, namely, the unraveling of the post-Cold War US-led order.
The piece traces how different power centres -- China, Europe, Russia, and Iran -- are recalibrating their strategies in response to a more transactional and unpredictable American foreign policy.
Drawing on remarks by Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, Smith suggests that middle powers may increasingly try to hedge against both Washington and Beijing, while major rivals such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin sit back and watch Western alliances develop cracks under the pressure.
The war with Iran, in Smith's telling, is a symptom of a rapidly changing global order.
In closing...
Thanks to the 'arrogance of power' mentioned earlier, neither the United States nor Israel appear to have budgeted for the economic shockwaves when they unilaterally decided to go to war.
Now those shockwaves are hitting, and we are still at the first order effects -- the second, third and fourth are coming, and they will be worse.
The world is paying a price it never agreed to pay, for a war it had no say in starting. And no one, it seems, has a credible plan to stop it.
Which brings us back to where we began: to Santayana, and to Clausewitz. The Prussian theorist had another famous formulation, less quoted than his 'fog of war' but no less relevant today: No plan survives first contact with the enemy. Heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson put it more pithily: 'No plan survives a punch in the face'.
Israel and the United States had a plan. Iran punched back. And now the Gulf is reeling, the world is beginning to feel the pain and, as on date, no one in Washington or Tel Aviv appears willing to admit that the punch has landed.
Feature Presentation: Rajesh Alva/Rediff