Plumes of smoke rise as airstrikes hit Tehran during the U.S.–Israeli military campaign, on Thursday.Vahid Salemi/The Associated Press
The new war in the Middle East is the latest reminder of how much military power still matters.
There are many forms of power in our world – the purchasing power of money, the productive power of industry, the soft power of ideas and ideals – but the hard power of armed force is often the final arbiter in human affairs. It can decide who governs, who controls which piece of turf and who lives or dies.
That this is sad does not make it less true.
Canadians of a few generations ago were acutely aware of this. As a small population occupying a large land mass, living next to a country that engaged in a century of territorial expansion at the barrel of a gun, they had to be.
But with no existential threats in our neighbourhood since before any of us were born, and with a benign United States there to handle any that might arise, Canadians could imagine we had the moral superiority to stand above such worries. Something similar happened to Europe after the Cold War. Canada began aggressively cutting its military budget in the 1960s; the Europeans rapidly disarmed after 1989.
What energy transition? The Middle East war shows the world still runs on oil
It was easy to persuade ourselves that military power was no longer a circulating currency. It was easy to persuade ourselves that we could build our dream home without the need for home insurance, because floods and fires were relics of history.
A world of trade and commerce is far better than one of conquest, and a world of rules is far better than one where armed force rules. The increase and spread of prosperity over the past generation has been remarkable, and it is no coincidence that rapid economic growth across much of the developed world has coincided with a decline in armed conflict.
One place where this has happened is in the crescent of countries to the south of the Persian Gulf, which have transformed overnight into prosperous societies at the crossroads of global trade and travel.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Gulf, the Islamic Republic of Iran is an economic basket case – but one that has sunk its wealth and ingenuity into building weapons, raising armies, fomenting conflict and subsidizing armed proxies far beyond its borders.
Despite Iran’s obvious economic weakness, its military power and that of its franchisees, such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, meant it was feared and respected by its wealthier neighbours. That’s part of the reason why Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Oman declined to join the American-Israeli attack on Iran.
However, not wishing to fight Iran is not the same as failing to prepare for the possibility.
Opinion: Mark Carney ties his own foreign policy in knots
One of the surprises of this war is that most of the Iranian missiles and drones launched at the Gulf states over the past week appear to have been shot down, thanks in part to these countries’ investments in advanced air-defence systems that can knock threats out of the sky.
Iran’s strategy of aerial assault on the Gulf states, with the aim of pushing them to demand that Washington end the war, has so far been a bit of a bust. Iran’s neighbours don’t have an unlimited supply of interceptors (they’re also in short supply for Americans, Israelis and Europeans), but their investment in preparing against Iran’s attacks has blunted the impact.
This war may still be in its early days, and the future is obviously unknown. The American military has so far demonstrated tactical brilliance, but with this White House in charge, it’s the ultimate case of lions led by strategic donkeys.
It’s unclear what U.S. President Donald Trump hopes to achieve. He started the war calling for regime change, immediately dropped that, then on Thursday claimed that he would somehow decide who becomes Iran’s next supreme leader, as he did after his attack on Venezuela.
Spain’s Prime Minister is making a career of not bending a knee to Donald Trump
Military power – and no country has as much of it as the U.S. – is no guarantee of success. Those who possess it can misuse it − and can also mistake it for a strategy. Bombing is a tactic, not a strategy. It’s a tool of foreign policy, not a destination. The U.S. has managed to lose a series of wars, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, in which its military superiority meant it won nearly every battle.
But if the possession of military force is no guarantee of good decisions or positive outcomes, a lack of military force leaves countries without the power to counter hard power – and risks leaving them without control over their own futures.
There are many take-aways from this war. For Canada, that may be the most important.