MILITARY historians often point out that of the major wars that took place from the 20th century onward, only World War II had clear, decisive winners: the United States-led Allied forces. The end of World War I, won by the Allied Powers, led to a great tragedy. After that war came the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, which deeply humiliated and inflicted great pain on the loser — Germany — through harsh reparation payments and the loss of German territory. That, in turn, planted the seeds of resentment that led to the rise of fascism, Adolf Hitler, and the Second World War.
A faction of the British liberal establishment, led by the economist John Maynard Keynes, was horrified by the terms of the reparation exacted from Germany that was spelled out in the Treaty of Versailles. The terms were regarded by Keynes — who started out as a numbers man famous for his computational wizardry — as beyond Germany’s capacity to pay. Indeed, the heavy toll from the reparation terms never gave Germany the chance to recover from the economic toll of World War I and the ensuing reparation obligations. Keynes and his group, painfully aware that the treaty’s terms would do more harm than good for global peace, tried to convince the British government to soften the terms demanded by France, in particular, but to no avail. At that point, Keynes and his group were already contemplating the coming mayhem rooted in the harsh terms of the treaty.
The dear lessons from Versailles and fascism’s rise were the historical context that led the Allied nations, headed by the US, to craft the Marshall Plan, the greatest postwar rebuilding effort in all history, done without inflicting pain on the losers — again led by Germany — after their victory in World War II. Efforts to put in place a global trading agreement (remember initials like the GATT, or General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) under the general spirit of reciprocity had its peak after World War II. The postwar years ushered in a period of spectacular economic growth and technological progress, the direct result of the magnanimous reconstruction effort focused on helping the war’s losers.
A review of the major conflicts after World War II — from Vietnam and the Middle East to Afghanistan — showed no clear, transformational victories. That same storyline is also predicted as the dire outcome of the ongoing US-Israeli misadventure in Iran.
Militarily, there are safe givens on the war on Iran.
The unquestioned air superiority of the combined US-Israeli forces can bomb Iran to the Stone Age. Their combined air forces can bomb at will and hit all their targets with precision, from Iran’s military facilities to critical oil depots. They can also decapitate most of Iran’s theocratic and barbarous leaders at will, and the initial attacks of Feb. 28 showed how accurate their strikes are. But as military experts have pointed out, decapitating the leadership simply means a routine change of leaders: from the old, barbarous leaders intent on killing all pro-democracy protesters to younger, more malevolent theocratic leaders who are more brazen and crueler in eliminating domestic opposition to theocracy.
Nothing changes on the ground despite the wreckage in Iran and the decapitation of its leadership. The mullahs remain in charge; the opposition remains leaderless and disorganized. Most, if not all, of the opposition leaders who can lead Iran after a hypothetical transition to democracy have been murdered, or languishing in prison. There are no “boots on the ground” for the hoped-for regime change, either. Across the breadth of Iran, the mullahs and their brutal military enforcers are clearly in charge.
Notwithstanding the wreckage within — and even with its nuclear capacity doubtful — Iran has been waging an asymmetric war: retaliating with cheap drones and its missile stock that have been hitting targets in Gulf areas, from massive Qatari liquefied natural gas facilities to US consulates, embassies, and military facilities within the Gulf. And hitting targets in Israel, complemented by cyberattacks. The mullahs are likewise defiant and contemptuous of US President Donald Trump.
Iran knows that Trump has waged the war on whimsy and without a coherent battle plan, as well as without an endgame. The Iranian leadership is also aware that the war is deeply unpopular with Americans. And even US traditional allies view the Iran attack as a senseless act of aggression.
Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway for cargo ships and tankers moving a quarter of the world’s oil, natural gas, and fertilizer supply, allows the Islamic republic to choke the supply of these critical commodities. By choking ship movements at the strait, Iran has deliberately caused a surge in the prices of oil, fertilizers, and natural gas across many parts of the world, including the Philippines.
The Philippines and countries like India have the misfortune of being reliant on imported oil and fertilizers, and the remittances of tens of millions of their citizens working in the Gulf countries.
The agonizing question in countries like the Philippines right now is: “How long will our food and oil supplies last?” And how many thousands of overseas workers should the government evacuate from the Gulf? And what will be the extent of the economic pain from the loss of overseas jobs and the precious remittances? A P21-billion emergency fund has been released to ease the economic pain inflicted by the war.
There is a clear winner, though: hunger. The World Food Program estimates that if the war drags on until June, the 319-million-strong global population now suffering from involuntary hunger will get 45 million. A sizable portion of that number addition will come from the Philippines, where the hunger rate is about 20 percent.
