Did Iran's Retaliation Work?
Foreign media reported today (March 3): "After the joint U.S.-Israel air strike on Iran, Iran's retaliatory actions have already spread to the surrounding areas of the Gulf. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar are urgently mediating, and their allied countries are lobbying U.S. President Trump to find a 'way out' in order to shorten the time of the U.S. military action against Iran, prevent the escalation of the war, and avoid impacting the global energy market."
Iran's retaliatory actions have spread widely, forcing the Strait of Hormuz to be closed, blocking one fifth of global oil supply, causing oil prices to surge, and shipping costs reaching an all-time high. Iran precisely struck U.S. military bases and embassies within the Gulf, exerting pressure with a strong countermeasure. The Gulf states are facing an unprecedented strategic dilemma: they rely on the United States for security, thus having to tolerate the deployment of U.S. troops; geographically, they are close to Iran, directly exposed to missile and drone attacks, and dare not anger Iran completely. They neither want to be tied to the U.S. war chariot and become a battlefield, nor want to be retaliated against due to their pro-American stance. They can only waver between mediation, risk avoidance, and limited cooperation to survive.
Iran is precisely taking advantage of this weakness, bringing the fire to the heart of the Gulf, expanding deterrence through asymmetric means, and forcing the United States to face the dual pressure of the expansion of the conflict and the energy crisis. This game has gone beyond the scope of the three parties involved - the U.S., Israel, and Iran. The passive situation of the Gulf states fully exposes the vulnerability and helplessness of small countries in the Middle East amid great power games.
Original text: toutiao.com/article/1858638535813255/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.