When Iran attacked oil tankers twice in the Sea of Oman, it was either seeking revenge for earlier attacks in June on Iranian oil facilities and ships in the northern Gulf, or else attempting to show that if sanctions continued it could retaliate by shutting off oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz despite the presence of US naval vessels in the vicinity--or most likely both.
The shooting down of a US naval drone, however, is another matter entirely. It is nothing less than an act of war. The appropriate action for Iran under international law would have been to notify the American military authorities in Bahrain or Qatar that a drone was (according to them) violating Iranian airspace and demand its withdrawal. Ordinarily there would be two appropriate responses to the action Iran did take: a diplomatic protest and threat of retaliatory action, or simply to take the retaliatory action after demonstrating that the drone was not, in fact, in Iranian airspace (if that is the case).
Either action brings with it the danger of escalation. If the protest is rejected and compensation denied, then the threatened military action will have to be taken or the US will lose all credibility. The likelihood of an Iranian admission of guilt and apology is small to nonexistent. If an Iranian target is attacked in retaliation the likelihood of Iranian retaliation in kind is high. Then we are off to the races.
In the event Trump responded in classic Trump style, creating an atmosphere of strategic confusion involving the assertion that devastating military action was called off at the last minute, coupled with the threat of even more draconian economic sanctions
Weeks of escalating hostile actions are bound to result in an event which would set off wider military action, if not all-out war. This may be that event. If widespread military action in and near the Gulf occurs, likely combined with increased Houthi attacks against Saudi targets and perhaps action taken by Hezbollah and/or Hamas against Israel, the economic effects worldwide will be substantial and entirely negative.
As to the effect on Israel, it would behoove everyone to read Trump's book on negotiating. So far, frankly, he has used it to pretty good if unnerving effect on various fronts, including trade and immigration. It can be boiled down (perhaps unfairly) to "Threaten, pull back, threaten more strongly, take some action and noisily eschew others, partially pull back" and so on and so forth. And he loves it.
Norman A. Bailey, Ph.D., is Professor of Economics and National Security, The National Security Studies Center, University of Haifa, and Adjunct Professor of Economic Statecraft, The Institute of World Politics, Washington DC. He was formerly with the US National Security Council and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The views he expresses are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of "Globes."
Published by Globes, Israel business news - en.globes.co.il - on June 24, 2019
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2019