Zimpapers Logo

Lawson Mabhena News & Politics Editor
One of the most circulated posters in protest history is from an anti-Vietnam war march in 1969 which read: “Bombing for peace is like ******* for virginity.”

If you forgive the language, you will understand the message.
The “bombs of peace” that were dropped by America in Iran early this month have ignited an age old debate, while US secretary of State Mr Mike Pompeo’s January 13 paper on deterrence added fuel to the fire: Can war achieve peace?

Speaking at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, Mr Pompeo revealed that the drone attack that killed Major-General Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s second most powerful official, was part of a broader strategy of deterring US enemies and also applies to China and Russia.

This explanation is contrary to earlier claims that the Iranian general was targeted for plotting attacks on US assets.
In the speech, aptly titled “The Restoration of Deterrence: The Iranian Example”, Mr Pompeo quoted Stanford scholar Victor Davis Hanson who said: “Deterrence is hard to establish and easy to lose.”

Deterrence is when a country convinces its opponents that the costs of taking unwanted actions, mainly military aggression, exceed the benefits.

The show of military might and the use of threats are some of the many methods in achieving deterrence, which has been a major component of US foreign policy since the end of World War II.

Bernard Brodie, an American military strategist, wrote in 1946: “Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them.”

The Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars are just but a few examples of the failure to avert wars, although some scholars argue that deterrence has been effective in avoiding a “major” war or World War III.

The justification for the attack on Iran is that the world must be reminded to be afraid of the US.
Both conventional and non-conventional would-be aggressors must know that US president Mr Donald Trump is ever-ready to deploy.

“For decades, US administrations of both political parties never did enough against Iran to get the deterrence that is necessary to keep us all safe,” Mr Pompeo said in his speech.

“The JCPOA itself — the nuclear deal — made things worse.
“It enabled that regime to create wealth, it opened up revenue streams for the Ayatollahs to build up the Shiite militia networks, the very networks — the very networks — that killed an American and imposed enormous risk at our — to our embassy in Baghdad.

“Rather than blocking those efforts, the deal put Iran on a clear pathway to a nuclear weapon as well, something President Trump began his remarks by saying would never happen on our
watch.

“So what did we do? We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military deterrence. The goal is two-fold.

“First, we wanted to deprive the regime of resources, resources it needs to perpetrate its malign activity around the world. And second, we just want Iran to behave like a normal nation.”

Mr Trump outlined this strategy in 2017 when he promised to deal with radical Islamist terror groups, porous borders, unfair trade practices and unfair burden-sharing with allies.

He issued the treats as a deterrent and true to his word, the US has been fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and has an ongoing trade war with China.
But still the questions remain, will bombing for peace work? And who deters who?

In June last year, Iranian forces downed a US drone ostensibly to deter US hostile acts such as violating its territory.
In a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the Security Council, Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Majid Takht Ravanchi, called the flight a “blatant violation of international law”.

The responsibility to deter does not lie squarely on the shoulders of the US, hence the violent response by Iran.
Clearly, violence is a cycle. It never ends.

Iran was undeterred by the US January 3 attack and struck back by firing a series of ballistic missiles at two military bases in Iraq housing American troops.

One may argue that this is the action that deterred war. The US could have done a quick cost-benefit analysis.
The claim that China and Russia could be “deterred” by the killing of Maj-Gen Soleimani is also far-fetched.
The only deterrent the US could employ to avoid war with these competing powers is not to provoke them.

Non-provocation is the only tried and tested means of avoiding war.
Acts of provocation lead to proportionate measures in self-defence, which ultimately lead to the escalation, that is war.
All states have a responsibility to vigorously defend their territory and when such a time comes, size does not matter. It’s the fight within.

Some things are worth dying for. National interest, in particular, is worth dying for.
War only begets war. Peace begets peace.
As the Serbians say, peace pays what war wins.