In ancient times, when two opposing forces go to war, one would lose and the other would win. Why? Because physical weapons were the only means available. Not so is the case in the modern era where defeat in a battle does not automatically mean victory for the winner, because the loser could lose the battle but win the war, and the victor could win the battle and lose the war.

Modern wars are determined not just by military superiority alone but also with supremacy in other fronts—intelligence, opinion engineering, economic, technological, proxy, and strategic primacy. The more a country excels in those fronts, the bigger the possibility for overpowering its enemies.

This explains why a developing country can withstand the onslaught of attacks from a superpower country as is visible in the US war against Iran. It does not mean, however, that Iran will defeat the US—a very remote possibility any sensible analysts could fathom.

Iran’s strength lies not solely in its fast depleting stockpile of ballistic missiles and drones, given that its missile launchers have been massively obliterated, and it is relying only on the 150 launchers remaining under merciless US and Israeli bombardment that has wiped out its air cover. It relies on the other war fronts.

Knowing that its military power is eroding rapidly, Iran is battling its enemies in the economic front—brazenly moving to close the Strait of Hormuz while attacking US military and economic assets in the Middle East.

By moving to close the Strait of Hormuz, Iran aims to drag Europe, Asia, and Africa into the war, hoping that European, Asian, and African countries would cry out to the US to stop the strikes. And by attacking American economic assets in the region, Iran hopes to milk US companies dry, knowing that those companies are insured in the US.

But closing Hormuz also means that Iran is burning its own bridge at both ends. It thereby won’t be able to sell oil even in the black market amid its gravely deteriorating economy as US forces are closely encircling the war zone and no insurance company would be willing to guarantee shipment.

If Hormuz remains dangerously unstable for a long time, the Iranian regime will witness its own collapse, as the citizens—reeling under the brunt of economic hardship—would launch massive demonstrations again for a regime change. Even the IRGC would see massive desertions and mutinies because hungry soldiers cannot fight.

But a bigger blunder Iran has made—seemingly out of frustration—is attacking US military bases in Arab countries. It is not the bases that actually matter for the Arabs; it is their sovereignty over the plots of land where the bases are situated—apart from civilian casualties.

Creating more enemies at a time two powerful enemies are destroying your country is the best way to initiate a countdown for your own obliteration. And this is what the regime and its die-hard fighters believe is the best way to ensure an unlikely survival.

A more reasonable way the Iranian regime should pursue is to negotiate on the 15-point US proposal for a ceasefire. “Maximalist and unreasonable” the de‑escalation proposal may sound, Iran has no better options on the table to defend its cause, because the Americans and Israelis would only increase their pressure should Iran resist or reject the proposal.

One thing is clear, even though the regime and its sworn loyalists—the IRGC—don’t like it: obduracy would only trigger even more massive attacks to cripple the country and bring about prolonged suffering to ordinary Iranians.

Albeit being a big conundrum, Iran’s Artesh, the regular military of 420,000 troops should now step in to defend the interest of the nation instead of allowing the IRGC to defend its obstinacy only to cause untold suffering to the population.

This is not the time to show off or put up a show of prestige, because what is at stake is the fate of tens of millions of people. The IRGC must now begin to find an off-ramp or exit strategy for a face-saving formula, instead of continuing to display its prestige and cause even more pain and hardship for the population. And it is better to do it sooner than later when domestic protests and violence grow out of control.

With the Arabs now rallying behind the US which provides them with security umbrellas while Europe, Russia and China refusing to openly support it due to the lack of mutual defense treaties, Iran is left alone in the fight even though Pakistan and Egypt show a considerable degree of sympathy. The maximum they can do is to act as interlocutors toward de-escalation, but even that is not a panacea to abolish enmity with the US and Israel.

Even in plain sight, countries that maintain good relations with Israel and the US prosper more than those who don’t. Even countries as strong as Russia and China also maintain good relations with Israel and the US despite their ups and downs. Singapore and the United Arab Emirates are shining examples of how the absence of terrorism and preservation of guaranteed stability can boost investment and trade and in the process raise people’s living standard.

Iran does not want to pursue that course because its regime thinks that strict adherence to Islamic theocracy in state affairs is better than democracy and freedom of expression—totally against the aspirations of the majority of its people that have been struggling for freedom, even to the extent of risking their own lives.

But such obstinacy won’t last long. State-enforced Islamic theocracy cannot survive in the modern world where restrictions to free speech and severe punishment for democracy seekers are grave violations of human rights.

Millions of Iranians living abroad have enjoyed the merits of democracy—the reason they keep protesting against the mullahs regime—and alas, those inside the country are being denied their basic freedoms. And the regime does not realize that the clock of change is ticking unusually faster now than before.

Is continued war the best option the regime needs to uphold? Certainly not. That is not what the Iranians want. They want a change—a drastic overhaul of the state system to allow for freedom of expression and establishment of a credible government to guarantee internal stability.

Selling millions of barrels of oil every month only for financing military buildup and sponsoring terrorism while denying in the process human rights of the citizenry is the worst form of governance that cannot last long, especially now when the winds of freedom are blowing irreversibly across the Persian Gulf.

It would be far more dignified for the remaining Iranian leaders to initiate the change by themselves with whatever off-ramp they can devise in line with the avalanche of people’s aspirations, than keeping up obduracy and intransigence when they know that the end-result would not satisfy their scenarios.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)