Patrick Henningsen: Iran Says NO to Ceasefire and Sets New Terms for the Region

Iran has adopted a deterrence strategy by inflicting costs on US allies in the Gulf, specifically targeting states hosting US military facilities. This strategy aims to make it economically and politically untenable for these states to allow their territory and airspace to be used for attacks on Iran. This has led to significant political pressure within Gulf States, with leaders expressing 'strident and stern remarks' and even considering canceling contracts with the US, indicating a fundamental shift in regional relationships.

Patrick Henningsen states, 'The Iranian strategy is to inflict a cost on the Gulf States for hosting US military facilities... this strategy is working because there's a lot of political pressure now with the Gulf States.' He mentions 'stern remarks from leading figures in the UAE as well as in Saudi Arabia' and the potential for 'cancelling contracts with the US government' and Western corporations pulling out.

Henningsen argues that the United States, while a military superpower, is politically subservient to Israel. He claims that the entire US military presence and assets in the Middle East and Pacific are primarily mobilized to protect the state of Israel, not US interests. This is evidenced by the redeployment of critical defense systems like THAAD from South Korea to Israel and the US's perceived lack of control over Israeli actions, even to its own detriment.

Henningsen states, 'The only reason for US presence in the Persian Gulf... is to provide protection for the state of Israel.' He asks, 'Politically speaking, who's the superpower? Is it Israel or is it the United States? And I will argue here that Israel is the superpower and the US politically speaking is subservient to Israel.' He cites the transfer of THAAD missile systems from South Korea to Israel as an example.

The US and Israel are accused of abandoning post-Vietnam war-gaming principles that aimed to minimize civilian casualties, adopting instead a 'maximum lethality' doctrine. This new approach involves targeting civilian infrastructure, financial institutions, and densely populated areas, which Henningsen labels as war crimes and chemical warfare. This disregard for international law, the Geneva Convention, and the neutering of the UN is creating a situation where diplomacy and conflict resolution frameworks are rendered ineffective, threatening the entire international system.

Henningsen details, 'They're now moving on to civilian infrastructure, killing civilians, hospitals... They even struck a major Iranian bank... creating environmental catastrophe.' He notes, 'The US Secretary of War is saying we need to untie our war fighters hands and get rid of these stupid rules of engagement and and we need to go for maximum lethality.' He references Politico's reporting on the cancellation of the 'civil protection center for excellence' program under Pete Hegseth.

The conflict is causing severe economic repercussions, particularly for Europe, with fuel prices nearly doubling and widespread protests. The closure of the Straits of Hormuz disproportionately affects European LNG imports and Asian oil supplies. Henningsen suggests the US is deliberately creating these disruptions to force countries like China and Japan to purchase more expensive US oil and LNG, effectively sabotaging international energy markets for its own economic gain, similar to the Nordstream pipeline incident.

Henningsen states, 'European fuel prices at the pump have nearly doubled in the last two weeks.' He describes the Straits of Hormuz closure as 'another Nordstream pipeline to the Far East, which the US has sabotaged, and then they're trying to redirect the energy markets in their favor by offering this to China.'