Panel Analyzes Political and Economic Impact of Iran War
If “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” then what do we make of the current war between the United States, Israel, and Iran? That question was explored by Government Department faculty experts during a provocative panel discussion at the Frank Center on April 23.
During the hourlong event, three government faculty members specializing in international relations each shared their perspectives on “Understanding the Iran War: Politics, Economics, and Global Impact,” before taking questions from the packed room of students, faculty, and staff. They included Douglas Foyle, chair and associate professor of government; Kolby Hanson, assistant professor of government and Global South Asian Studies; and Lindsay Dolan, assistant professor of government.
To start, Foyle focused his remarks on the national security process, public opinion, and foreign policy. In the United States, he explained, we have a National Security Council interagency process. That process involves evaluating how a policy is supposed to work, how it might fail, as well as challenges that might arise. Different departments are involved in developing the policy before the president makes a decision, followed by implementation of the policy by various agencies, including the Departments of State, Treasury, and Defense, among others.
But President Trump has changed this process in a number of ways, said Foyle, including having the same person, Marco Rubio, serve as the National Security Advisor and Secretary of State; cutting the National Security Council staff in half; and limiting the number of individuals involved in decision making to a small circle. These changes have led to unclear goals, among other deficiencies.
“What we've seen is they've been very ineffective at achieving the goal of eliminating Iran's missiles,” he said. “All of this has been [worsened] by a lack of effective communication strategy.” The administration also failed to anticipate the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, which goes back to the lack of a security council process. “Effective policy process does not ensure success,” he explained. “Poor process makes it very difficult to achieve a task, and it makes it even more difficult to sustain their effort.”
Hanson began his remarks by explaining what recent administrations, including the current one, have wanted in terms of Iran policy. There are two end goals, he said: to stop or slow Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities; and to prevent the regime from funding proxy militant groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen.
The problem, Hanson said, is these aims are “not goals the U.S. can achieve directly through military force, at least not durably without a long-term invasion and occupation.” Without direct intervention or troops on the ground, he said, the United States can’t prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear capabilities or from backing the various militant proxy groups.
“That means this is not a brute force problem; it's a coercion problem,” Hanson said. “The U.S. needs to force Iran to accept terms that they view to be big compromises of their national security.” But that is a complex proposition because Iran would have to be convinced that cooperation was in its best interest. Recent history—from the U.S. intervention in Libya to the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal negotiated during President Obama’s tenure—does not give Iran reason to believe they would be better off without nuclear power or proxies.
Another key point Hanson made was that despite the destruction of much of the former leadership in Iran, the regime is not weakened. “More concerningly, through this war, Iran has discovered a really big, new, important source of leverage against the West, which is closing the Strait [of Hormuz],” he said. “All of this damage to the Iranian regime, and it's not clear the U.S.'s bargaining position has improved.”
Dolan focused on the relationship between politics and economics. She outlined several consequences of the war, including global inflation and risk of recession; harm to developing countries reliant on fertilizer; damage to America’s reputation worldwide; and risks to the value of the U.S. dollar.
Dolan’s final point—the one that concerns her most—is about uncertainty. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with the lack of response to the leverage the Strait provides Iran, has taught the world a lesson. “You can't undo what just happened in terms of demonstrating that this source of leverage exists for Iran,” she said. “And rationally, we would expect market actors to change the way they do business in ways that acknowledge this possibility.”
From global supply chains to insurance, “market actors” will adjust to this new reality. This uncertainty will in turn increase costs throughout the global economy, she said. The resulting inflation may be durable, regardless of how long the war lasts.
“If in a good case scenario, where we come to a decisive end, we might get oil back flowing, we might get fertilizer back flowing, we might see some of the economic challenges dissipate,” Dolan noted. “But this last source of uncertainty, I think, is permanent.”
The presentations were followed by an active Q&A session that included questions about public opinion about the war, the civilian-military relationship, the role of Israel and its conflict with Lebanon, the response of U.S. allies, impact on global trade, and the U.S. relationship with Europe.
