Image source: Getty Images
From the similarities between the Suez Crisis in 1956 and the American war on Iran seventy years later, to the strategy that US President Donald Trump seems to have settled on in dealing with Tehran, all the way to the escalation of the use of drones in Sudan, and the widespread human losses it caused. These are the most prominent issues covered by The Independent, The Washington Post, and The Guardian, amid questions about the lessons of history and the future of war in the Middle East, and fears that the Sudanese conflict will become a model for future wars.
We begin our tour with the British newspaper The Independent, which published an article by Stephen Glover entitled “From the Suez Crisis to Hormuz, What Has Really Changed in Seventy Years?” In which he recalls the events of 1956, comparing them to the crises the world is witnessing today, especially the American war on Iran.
Glover says that seventy years ago, the British lived under the impact of two prominent events: the Suez Crisis and the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, two events that contributed to shaping the contemporary world, even though they have become largely forgotten.
The writer believes that the world today, despite its great difference from 1956, faces remarkably similar political and international problems, as at that time there was a Middle Eastern power that many considered a threat to the West, a superpower that exceeded the limits of its capabilities, and an oil crisis, in addition to Russian intervention in an Eastern European country.
He adds that if Egypt were replaced by Iran, Britain by the United States, and Hungary by Ukraine, it might seem that the world would not have changed much.
Glover recalls the events of November 5, 1956, when British and French forces invaded Egypt with the aim of regaining control of the Suez Canal, which President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized three months earlier.
Despite the military success of the operation, British Prime Minister Anthony Eden ordered its halt after one day, under the weight of strong American opposition.
The writer points out that the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower had voted alongside the Soviet Union against Britain and France in the Security Council, had also refused to provide financial support to London, and had pressured the International Monetary Fund not to grant it a loan.
Most read end
On the other hand, Glover says that Soviet forces crushed the uprising in Hungary, without facing significant condemnation from world powers, which had their sights set on Egypt.
The writer considers that the Suez crisis constituted a humiliation for Britain from which it never fully recovered, as it then lost its position as the main Western power in the Middle East, and was replaced by the United States.
Glover moves on to a comparison with the American war on Iran, considering that Washington committed a mistake similar to what London committed in 1956, and in turn contributed to igniting an oil crisis.
He believes that President Donald Trump's reputation will continue to be affected by this war, and that the United States' international standing has suffered great damage, albeit less severe than what Britain suffered seventy years ago.
The writer concludes that the current oil crisis will eventually end, but American power may not return to its previous state, at a time when China is monitoring developments from Beijing, while Russia has not been defeated in Ukraine.
He ends his article by saying that he wished Trump had known more about what happened in 1956.
Trump chooses a middle path with Iran
Image source: Reuters
Stay updated with the latest current affairs
Download the app
BBC Arabic application for mobile phones
We turn to the American newspaper “The Washington Post”, which published an article by journalist Joshua Keating entitled “Trump settles on a middle path with Iran: no new war, no talks, and no lasting peace,” in which he discusses the American strategy towards Tehran, eight months after the outbreak of the war.
The article indicates that Trump, who had hinted prior to the midterm elections that the war was about to end, appears to have settled on a third option, which is based on avoiding the resumption of military operations and freezing negotiations, while continuing economic pressure on Iran.
Trump has announced that he has stopped trying to reach an agreement with Tehran, at a time when he does not seem willing to return to an unpopular war that has drained significant American military resources.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio refuses to describe the current situation as stalemate, considering that economic pressures are causing great damage to the Iranian regime, which spares Washington the need to carry out large-scale military operations.
Although limited progress has been achieved in the talks in recent weeks, differences remain, as Iran demands the lifting of the US blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, the easing of sanctions, and the release of its financial assets before the start of the nuclear negotiations, while Washington refuses to provide advance economic incentives.
The newspaper points out that the recovery of crude oil exports from the Gulf to levels approaching those recorded before the war has eased the pressure on the American administration, despite the large military cost of the continued deployment of its forces in the region.
On the other hand, the sanctions and blockade led to a shortage of electricity and fuel inside Iran, and a rise in inflation to more than 80 percent, without clear indications of Tehran’s willingness to make concessions.
The article quotes Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group, that there is a consensus within Tehran that the siege is painful and cannot be tolerated forever, but making concessions under pressure may lead to more American pressure.
As the confrontation continues, the newspaper indicates that Iran is testing new tactics, including targeting ships and using limpet mines, while Democrats in Congress intend to restrict funding for the war, amid pledges to work to end it.
Drones spread destruction and death in Sudan... Is this the future of wars?
We conclude our tour with the British newspaper The Guardian, which published a report by journalist Carlos Murici dealing with the escalation of the use of drones in the Sudanese war, and the massive human losses it caused.
The report reviews two attacks that occurred last October, the first in the town of Al-Dabbab in West Kordofan state, where two drone strikes killed at least 139 people, and the second targeted a market in the city of Nyala in South Darfur, killing 103 people, according to the “Emergency Lawyers” human rights group.
The newspaper says that drones have become by far the main cause of civilian deaths in the Sudanese war, pointing to UN data indicating that at least 880 civilians were killed in drone strikes between January and April of this year, meaning more than 80 percent of civilian deaths related to the conflict during that period.
An investigation by the Information Resilience Center revealed the use of 21 models of drones since the outbreak of war, including models used by the Rapid Support Forces and their allies, made in Belarus, China and Russia, and others used by the army and its allies, made in Iran, Sudan and Turkey.
According to the report, the army usually uses drones to target Rapid Support bases and their supply lines, while the Rapid Support Forces target infrastructure, including power stations, airports, and hospitals.
The repercussions of the attacks are not limited to human losses, but extend to the disruption of basic services and the obstruction of the arrival of humanitarian aid. The report quotes UNICEF as saying that two out of every three children who fell victim during the current year were victims of marches.
It also refers to Sudanese accusations against the UAE of providing the Rapid Support Forces with drones, and against Ethiopia of allowing them to be launched from its territory, which are accusations that both countries deny.
The report concludes with a warning from researcher Nathaniel Raymond, of Yale University, that the methods used in Sudan may become a model for future wars, with the spread of less expensive and more effective weapons, unless international controls are imposed on their use.
Find out more
Short clips
End of short clips
