The
Guardian view on Israel and Iran: there will be no winners from an all-out war
Editorial
An oil price
shock and economic downturn are among the likely effects of an attack on Iran’s
exporting capacity
Tue 8 Oct
2024 14.06 EDT
When Joe
Biden last week said that his administration has been “discussing” possible
Israeli plans to attack Iran’s oil industry in retaliation for Iran’s ballistic
missile attack, it left the world stunned. Notably because Mr Biden didn’t
reject these plans outright, in the way that he had the day before regarding a
possible strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. Oil prices jumped 10%, even though the
US president walked back the remark the next day.
The
historian AJP Taylor wrote that “wars are much like road accidents” in that
they had profound consequences but did not necessarily have equally profound
causes. Targeted Israeli strikes on refinery complexes may not do much more
than win domestic applause. Bombing Kharg Island, the heart of Iran’s
oil-export operations, would cripple its economy. However, such a move might
also drive up global oil prices and have an impact on American consumers just
weeks before a crucial election.
Washington’s
sanctions have failed to stymie Iran’s oil exports, largely because China has
been willing to defy Washington. With Beijing purchasing about 90% of Iran’s
crude oil, an Israeli attack on Iranian facilities would have uncertain
consequences. The real risk lies in escalation, potentially drawing China into
the conflict and reshaping Middle Eastern dynamics for years.
The outcome
of such a conflict is hard to foresee. However, the aftermath of the US
invasion of Iraq serves as a reminder that destabilising actions often invite
outside powers to intervene in the Middle East. Last week, Russia conducted
airstrikes in Syria against what it said were militant groups in an area under
US control. The possibility of Russian military forces and American troops
colliding in Syria has been a persistent worry as the adversaries took opposing
sides in the country’s civil war. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has only
sharpened the mutual antagonism.
Ultimately,
the impact of an Israeli attack will hinge on Iran’s response and how major
global oil producers react to the likely oil shock. China could offset the loss
of its 1.5m barrels per day of Iranian oil by turning to Saudi Arabia, which
has ample spare production capacity. However, Riyadh, having recently restored
ties with Tehran, is cautious about being drawn into a conflict between Israel
and Iran. The desert kingdom sought to improve relations with Tehran after its
costly war with the Houthis triggered a devastating Iranian drone attack on its
oil facilities. The attack, which bypassed US Patriot missile defences,
temporarily cut Riyadh’s oil production in half.
An all-out
war between Iran and Israel could lead to the closure of the strait of Hormuz,
the world’s most critical oil transit chokepoint, through which a quarter of
all tanker-shipped crude is moved. This would be a hammer blow to the global
economy. But if Iran were backed into a corner with its export capacity reduced
to a smoking ruin, it might close the strait in an act of desperation. Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates reportedly refused to open their airspace
to Israeli and US aircraft involved in bombing Iran last April. Both would no
doubt think it prudent to do so again. War is not an acceptable and tolerable
way of solving international disputes. It would be better to silence the guns
in the region’s battle zones and resort to diplomacy. If leaders collectively
embraced this view, the Middle East – and the world – would undoubtedly be a
safer and more stable place.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário