An interview with James Devine on the conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States
On Feb. 28, the United States and Israel launched coordinated attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran, leading to the death of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran retaliated by firing ballistic missiles at Israel and U.S. facilities across the Middle East, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
James Devine, a professor from the department of politics and international politics at Mt.A, is an expert in Middle Eastern politics. On Friday, March 6, Devine gave a public talk for students, faculty, and others interested, providing a general analysis of the unfolding events. He was also interviewed by the Argosy on Thursday, March 5, regarding the same topic.
In the interview, Devine summarized key events to be “the American decision, along with Israel, to start attacks on Iran and not just to bomb military infrastructure and nuclear infrastructure, but to try and decapitate the regime.” He also highlighted the importance of Iran’s response, as “Iran’s willingness and ability to retaliate [has been] on a much larger scale than we saw during the June war of last year.”
Devine’s analysis of the heart of the issue is focused on three critical issues: Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile program, and support for regional proxies like Hezbollah (based in Lebanon) and the Houthis (based in Yemen). However, there are other important factors to consider. He added the regional balance of power in the Middle East and the longstanding rivalries between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. are also connected.
In further analysis, Devine brought up the Iranian protests that erupted on Dec. 28. Amnesty International reported, “people across the country, outraged at decades of repression, were demanding fundamental change and a political system that respects human rights and dignity.” Devine said, “the protests made Iran look weak and vulnerable to the Americans and Israelis, which feeds into the conflict or the decision to launch the attacks.”
When it comes to the possible duration of the war, there are many unknowns, as there is little public information on Iran’s military power, which makes predicting a realistic timeline difficult. Devine explained, “We did not know how many missiles they had left, how many launchers they had left, how well they were going to be able to stand up to attacks from the United States and Israel… [but] Iran had more capacity than a lot of people expected.”
The attacks are putting strain on other countries and alliances in the region as well. Devine said Iran’s strategy is “to try and bring everybody into the conflict and spread the pain out as much as possible to all of the West’s allies in the region, which may drive countries closer to the U.S., but may also lead to the question of whether the U.S. can truly protect them.”
When evaluating Iranian views, Devine said there is a mixed reaction. He further detailed, “A large part of the population was very happy to see Khamenei killed … the regime does not have the support of the majority of the population, who don’t just not support it, but they want it gone.” The question is now whether the Iranian population will blame the regime for getting them into this or start blaming the Americans and the Israelis.
Canadians are and will also be affected by the conflict. Devine explained, “there are 1.7 million Canadians who are of Middle Eastern descent as of 2021 … whether it’s family members who are still there or just places that they identify with being destroyed in a conflict, it’s very traumatizing.” He also emphasized the importance of economics and international relations, noting rising oil prices and market insurance will increase, and Canada, although unlikely, may be drawn into the war if institutions such as NATO become involved through attacks on Türkiye.
Devine does not see de-escalations and negotiations as a current possibility, but says leverage will depend on the strength of each side in the conflict when negotiations begin. He predicts a reduction in missile attacks from Iran may signal negotiations will be close to underway. However, if the U.S. stands on its demand for zero enrichment, getting rid of all ballistic missiles, and cutting all relations with its proxies, Iran will reject the agreement, as both continued war and concessions will lead to its death.