The War in West Asia: Winners and Losers

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" - U.S. President Donald Trump

An uneasy ceasefire was entered into between the U.S. & Iran on April 8th.

As the the clock ticked down to the deadline imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump on the Iranians to re-open the Strait of Hormuz, uncertainty grew over the course of action the U.S. President would pursue. With just 8 hours to go, Donald Trump posted on his social media (Truth Social) a genocidal threat directed at the Iranians. For those in Asia, many went to bed expecting to wake up to the news of a significant escalation in attacks by the U.S. on Iran.

Yet behind the scenes frantic negotiations were taking place led by an unlikely diplomatic mediator in Pakistan.

With less than two hours to go till the deadline expired, Trump once again took to social media and announced a temporary ceasefire, based on Iran re-opening the Strait of Hormuz, to allow for further negotiations. At the forefront of his message was the recognition of the role Pakistan played in securing this agreement.

This author has previously written on Pakistan’s role in attempting to mediate a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran.

Now with it appearing that a, albeit fragile, ceasefire has come into effect, we can turn our attention to who the big winners and losers are at this stage of the conflict.

Field Marshall Asim Munir - Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan

As written earlier, Pakistan took it upon themselves to attempt to mediate a ceasefire between the two countries, taking on a role that many other countries avoided. A country that is often looked upon as a State grappling to control its own insurgencies, plagued by political instability and dominated by its military, Pakistan would not often be considered a first-choice mediator for a regional conflict. However, between sharing a border of over 900km with Iran, and a continually strengthening relationship with the U.S., Pakistan was well placed to open the dialogue.

It was, however, the strong relationship that Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir had struck with the U.S. that drove home the deal.

It was less than a year ago that Munir first met Donald Trump in what was a significant diplomatic shift . This official engagement, which was the first time a U.S. President has hosted a Pakistani Army Chief without any civilian officials being present, included a private lunch and strategic discussions. A second meeting followed shortly after when Munir accompanied Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. However, it was during the Gaza peace summit in Egypt in October last year that Trump personally endorsed Munir, describing him as his “favourite Field Marshal”.

Through what has been a carefully cultivated relationship by Munir, who has assumed the role of a “military diplomat”, Pakistan’s military supremo has ensured Pakistan’s interests have aligned closed with the U.S. Taking the discussions beyond security matters, Munir has successfully repaired ties between the two countries through spearheading greater economic engagement in the form of crypto mining and the trade in rare earth minerals.

Leveraging his close relations with the U.S. administration, including both the President and Vice-President J.D. Vance, Munir was able to ensure that the U.S. never fully walked away from the negotiating table paving the way for the 11th hour agreement.

The successes of Munir, both in this particular instance and overall in cultivating a close relationship with America, has meant that Pakistan’s Army Chief has been elevated to a level akin to a national statesmen. Pakistan’s history of military coups and governance by the armed forces will make for an interesting precursor to what, if any, ambitions Munir may hold for the future.

J.D. Vance - Vice President of the U.S.A.

Bursting on to the scene following Trump’s inauguration, Vance was touted as the heir apparent for the White House. Unlike many other former American Vice Presidents, Vance was involved far more in day-to-day affairs, leading the charge on global matters including America’s engagement with Europe. Within weeks of Trump 2.0 taking office, Vance was given the responsibility of outlining the administration’s policy towards America’s allies in Europe. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, the Vice-President castigated the European leaders for what he described as the suppression of free speech, the allowance of illegal migration and the avoidance of listening to the voters.

Close on the heels of his tirade against the European leadership, Vance was dispatched to Greenland, making him the highest ranking U.S. official to visit. It was here that, while attempting to soften the blow, he re-iterated the administration’s desire to gain control of the island.

Continuing to bask in the approval and promotion by Donald Trump, Vance soon assumed a key role in ensuring the implementation of the “Trump Tariffs”. As a vocal proponent of the tariff war, Vance was integral in the U.S’ administrations negotiations with countries, including India and the U.K.

With his star rapidly rising among both the administration and Washington at large, his absence in the ongoing war in Iran has been noticeable. A supporter of the “America First” policy, Vance has reportedly been sceptical of the U.S’s involvement in Iran. This has seen him fall out of favour, and fast, with both Trump and the administration. While Vance was not the only one to play a limited role, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also been conspicuously absent, recent weeks have seen him actively sidelined.

In fact, while Trump was threatening to escalate the war in Iran, his Vice-President had been sent to Hungary where he was actively campaigning for the incumbent Viktor Orban.

However, Vance’s absence has not meant he has been completely forgotten. With the arrival of Pakistan’s mediation efforts, once again Vance was thrown back into fray, after week’s of absence. Leading negotiations on behalf of the U.S. Vance was seen as the viable option, due in large part to the rejection of Jared Kushner and the U.S’ Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff. It does warrant mention that this is not the first time Vance has led back-channel negotiations in attempting to garner a ceasefire. Last year when Pakistan and India were squaring off, it was reported that Vance had played a role in getting India to the table for talks. Leading the talks on behalf of the U.S., coupled with his apprehension over the war in the first place, Vance has suddenly developed a credibility that had otherwise been absent from his previous actions.

As the ceasefire in West Asia takes effect, a search for a calming influence within the U.S. administration will be sought after. With Donald Trump having threatened to obliterate Iran, the Secretary of State remaining silent and the wild ramblings of the Secretary of War (Pete Hegseth), Vance has positioned himself as the only option. With the political circles in Washington voicing opinion on invoking the 25th Amendment, Vance will certainly not be hasty in returning to his old role of attack dog for the White House.

Iran

With Iran’s Supreme Leader of 36 years dead, the condition of his successor unknown and the military leadership in shambles due to assassinations, you would be hard pressed to view the country as being in a strong position. Yet Iran has now found themselves, in many ways, on a stronger footing than when this war started.

For the past several decades Iran has been the target of sanctions, in large part due to the continuation of their nuclear program, along with allegations of support being extended to terrorist groups around the region. While being forced to operate outside of the international financial system, through a network of shadow corporations and businesses, Iran has developed an economic model which, according to PwC, has placed the country on the path to being the 17th largest economy by 2050¹.

In January this year the country was the scene of widespread protests led by the opposition groups and the youth over rising costs of living and a flailing economy. Pressure was growing on the Iranian government, and the Ayatollahs, to produce a turnaround.

However, the decision by the U.S. and Israel to launch the war on Iran has in many ways provided the Iranian government with an opportunity to address their financial hardships. After years of threatening to do so, Iran, through the threat of attacks, has successfully gained control over the Strait of Hormuz. They have since proposed the introduction of a toll system for vessels that will transit the Strait, a move that will infringe upon the freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean.

With Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz, and having not capitulated in the face of the ongoing assault, their strength at the negotiating table was on display for all to see. The result has been the acceptance of a 10 point plan, which had been previously rejected by the U.S., as a starting block for negotiations to conclude the war. Among the points proposed by the Iranians is the complete removal of both primary and secondary sanctions placed on the country, as well as allowing Iran to maintain control over the Strait. If these conditions are met it will not only be a monetary windfall, as many of the shadow corporations can be brought into the main financial system, but it will also provide the regime with breathing room to improve the domestic economy. Furthermore, the continued control of the Strait of Hormuz will provide them with leverage to deter countries from resorting to future military action.

The Losers

While there are three clear parties who stand to benefit from the war and the manner in which it has progressed, the repercussions from this ill-conceived military venture will be felt the world over.

Iran’s continued control over the Strait of Hormuz will almost certainly impact global oil prices, with any reduction being unlikely in the medium terms as both suppliers and buyers remain wary of the new regulations governing the transport. For the Indian Ocean, freedom of navigation will be under threat as Iran’s control over the Strait could potentially see reciprocal action taken at other choke points in the region. For Asia, the war has opened up new avenues of threats to regions such as the Indian Ocean, which will certainly lead to a rise in tensions.

Many of the Gulf states who had allied themselves with America were the targets of heightened Iranian aggression. The absence of the U.S’ protection for these countries was a rude awakening, and will most certainly force them to re-evaluate their reliance on America. However, a newly empowered Iran will be a cause of concern for these countries, who will no doubt fear retribution in some form or another from their Persian neighbour.

While globally the fallout from the war is expected to be widespread. Back in the U.S. and Israel, their embattled leadership will be facing growing questions over their futures.

For Donald Trump, his Republican party are facing a growing challenge at the upcoming mid-term elections. Latest polls are suggesting that the Democrats are experiencing a surge, suggesting that the Republican’s slender control over the House is under a growing cloud of uncertainty. Coupled with the rising calls for the House to invoke the 25th Amendment, Trump is facing a very uncertain future. A war which was supposed to shore up his support ahead of the mid-terms may instead be the beginning of the end of Donald Trump 2.0.

Across in Israel Benjamin Netanyahu has been under domestic pressure for several years. Facing an ongoing criminal trial related to bribery and fraud, the Israeli leader has managed to deflect attention through his war on Gaza and now on Iran and Lebanon. With international condemnation having reached a crescendo in regard to Israel’s actions in Gaza, Netanyahu no doubt hoped that victory in Iran would shore up his support back home. Failure to achieved his stated aim of the destruction of the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp) and implement regime change will most certainly see a renewed call for a change in leadership back in Israel.

With the war in West Asia entering a period of an uneasy ceasefire, many states will look back and take account of where they stand. Whether the world will accept the situation as it currently stands, or attempt to further right the wrongs of the past remains to be seen.

1. Rankings are compiled by a country’s Gross Domestic Product based on their Purchasing Power Parity.