WHAT EXPECTS THE WORLD AFTER THE ''DUMB'' WAR?

When the current US President Barack Obama was a senator, in a speech at a rally in Chicago, he called the Iraq war "dumb and a diversion from the war on terror and the operation in Afghanistan". One of his campaign promises was to end the war and withdraw the US troops from Iraq. And finally, at the end of this year, Obama announced the end of US involvement in the Iraq war, thereby presenting it as the fulfilment of his campaign promises. That's why some experts regard this step as Obama's skilful move before the presidential election, which could improve his falling rating. In addition, in American society, the nine-year US military campaign in Iraq has been losing more and more of its supporters year by year. If in March 2003, the war in Iraq, according to a poll conducted by the ABC TV channel and The Washington Post, was supported by 69 per cent of American respondents and opposed by 23 per cent, in November of this year, these figures were 29 and 68 per cent respectively (a CNN poll).

According to official reports, more than 4.5 thousand Americans were killed in Iraq, while more than 30 thousand were injured and shell-shocked. The international coalition of 21 countries lost more than two hundred soldiers. Some experts argue that this war cost US taxpayers one trillion dollars. But all these figures pale in comparison with the losses of Iraq and the Iraqi people. According to an estimate by Opinion Research Business, which official statistics consider clearly overstated, by January 2008, from 946,000 to 1.12 million innocent Iraqis had become victims of the war. According to statistics for 2010, there are approximately 2.7 million refugees and displaced persons in the country, while some 2 million Iraqis have fled abroad.

But the most powerful blow was inflicted on Iraq's statehood. Despite the fact that in 2005, Iraq held quite fair elections and formed a government, the process of democratization and building a full-fledged state is extremely difficult. The American magazine Foreign Policy publishes annual rankings of so-called "failed states". In 2011, Iraq took 9th place among the states that are in the most difficult situation. A study conducted by NBC TV and The Wall Street Journal suggests that one in five Americans believes that after the withdrawal of the US troops, a civil war will break out in Iraq. Only 4 per cent of respondents believe that Iraq will become a full-fledged democracy and only 7 per cent believe that Iraq will become a more stable and peaceful state. These are the unpleasant results of the "dumb" war.

Half of the Americans polled by CBS said that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power was not worth the lives and resources used for it. Meanwhile, experts' opinions on the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the progress made during the war are divided.

Many US analysts believe that the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq played into the hands of Iran, which has greatly strengthened its influence in this country. The departure of the US reduces the possibility of any real deterrent against Tehran and causes concern among Washington's allies in the region. And Iran gets a chance to support not only Syria, but also Lebanese Hezbollah.

In their opinion, the war in Iraq was a clear setback for the US. But in the long-term, Washington's position may improve. Many Republican candidates for US president also sharply criticize the Barack Obama administration for the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq. They argue that the president puts America's national security at risk and endangers the hard-won benefits for the United States. In particular, the Republicans point to the possible rapid growth in Iranian influence in Iraq and question the loyalty of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. It should be noted that the Iraqi prime minister, who is known as a nationalist and a strong-arm leader, refused to sign a military cooperation agreement with the US and give the US troops the right of extraterritoriality (outside the jurisdiction of local courts). In addition, while on an official visit to Washington, he refused to support the calls for the removal of the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. Some American media link this step to the fact that at one time, fleeing from Saddam Hussein, Nuri al-Maliki took refuge in Syria and Iran. Such a tough stance by the Iraqi prime minister is a hypothetical reason for another US military invasion of Iraq. And can we seriously speak about a final end to the war in Iraq and the withdrawal of the American troops from the country?

The aggravation of the political situation in Iraq immediately after the withdrawal of the US troops is evidence that the country, which is practically divided into three parts, has plunged into an abyss of permanent chaos and tension for a long time. Tensions between Sunni politicians and supporters of the Iraqi prime minister, Shia Nuri al-Maliki, are growing in the country again. After a series of attacks, there is increased likelihood of sectarian violence. Most likely, this was one of the strategic objectives of the United States, which they achieved. This scenario requires the constant presence in Iraq of an arbitrator represented by the American military contingent. That is why the "withdrawal" of the US troops from Iraq was furnished with a kind of US presence in that country. For example, the US embassy in Iraq will have approximately 16 thousand diplomats, support staff and guards, which looks more than strange. On the other hand, according to some estimates, the number of soldiers of American private military companies is 50 thousand people. This indirectly indicates that in effect, there is still an imposing US intelligence apparatus in Iraq. In addition, the US troops withdrawn from Iraq have not left the region in full. In the Gulf region, there is still a 40,000-strong American military contingent stationed in several Arab countries, particularly Kuwait (23,000 troops). According to American sources, they will act as a deterrent against Iran.

Apparently, the vector of Washington's foreign policy is already aimed at solving the Iranian problem. This is evidenced by several specific points. Firstly, "departing" from Iraq, the US leaves its military personnel in the Persian Gulf region, which makes it possible to concentrate it in the direction of Iran. Secondly, to ensure the security of its rear, Washington is secretly negotiating with representatives of the Afghan armed opposition movement - the Taliban. According to US intelligence, they are on the verge of reaching an agreement with the Taliban, which will lead to peace talks and end the war in Afghanistan. Thirdly, Washington is stepping up pressure on the regime of the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, trying to secure the surrender of one of Tehran's important allies. Fourthly, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General M. Dempsey, said that "if necessary", the US armed forces are able to strike Iranian nuclear and military installations. However, he noted that such an action may draw his country into a prolonged conflict, "which will be a tragedy for the region and the whole world". Immediately, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said that the States cannot exclude an attack on Iran because they cannot allow Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons: "If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it. There is very little time left. By the end of 2012, if not before, Iran will get a chance to create a nuclear weapon." Judging by the statements of US security officials, Washington will try to cut Iran's "Gordian knot" next year. But to this end, the US will have to determine the mechanism for addressing the issue. Diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions against Iran have still not yielded definite results. Tighter proposals from the US and its allies on economic sanctions on Iran's oil sector are cleverly blocked by Russia and China. In addition, in the presidential election year, Barack Obama has yet to convince the American voters of the need to initiate hostilities against Iran - whether it is pinpoint missile strikes or ground military operations. The White House will have to solve the same problem at the international level. After it became known that the war in Iraq was launched on false charges, the international community takes the Iranian nuclear dossier with a large share of scepticism. This is another stumbling block to the creation of an international coalition, if the US ultimately decides to take military action against Iran. Today, only Israel and the United Kingdom have expressed their willingness to support this option. By the way, the American invasion of Iraq was initially vehemently opposed by Germany, France and Russia. Given these realities, Washington is unlikely to be able to push a resolution endorsing military action against Iran at the UN Security Council. Even if the United States deems it appropriate to act alone, bypassing the UN, as stated in their new "National Security Strategy", Moscow and Beijing will not want to remain outside observers, for which there is a good reason. The American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as intervention in Middle Eastern and North African events dealt a severe blow to Russia's geopolitical interests in the Gulf region. Russia's political and economic involvement here is practically reduced to zero. The fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria means the end of Russia's presence in the Mediterranean Sea. The downfall of Iran fully lays bare Russia's southern flank and is a precursor to Russia's loss of geopolitical influence in the South Caucasus, Central Asia and the Caspian region.

China, which has increased its economic presence in Iran in recent years, is also not interested in such a scenario. Washington does not hide its concern with the continued political, economic and military development of China. For Beijing, it is more than clear that China is the ultimate strategic target for the US. For this reason, the longer Washington is busy with tactical tasks, the more easily China will engage in building up its economic and military potential. With regard to Iran's response, Washington and its allies are unlikely to face an easy task, since Tehran has repeatedly stated that in the event of pinpoint missile strikes against Iran, its response will be asymmetric - up to attacks on US targets in neighbouring countries. The recent large-scale exercises by the Iranian navy, who practised the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, through which oil and gas are exported from the Persian Gulf, suggest that Tehran openly threatens to block the main oil artery of the world. But if pinpoint missile strikes on Iran are hypothetically possible, the possibility of a ground military operation against Iran is practically zero. Although the armed forces of Iran are weaker than the US army, the Iranian army is quite large in comparison with the other Persian Gulf countries and has fairly serious technical equipment.

Based on the aforesaid and taking into account the positions of a number of leading world powers (especially Russia and China), 2012 is unlikely to be marred by a US-Iranian military confrontation. Most likely, Washington will use a tried and tested method that proved itself in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa, especially as the new "National Security Strategy" of the US is primarily focused precisely on the use of such tactics rather than expensive "dumb wars".