Do you have a question about the war in Iran? Or is there something you want to know about world conflict? Defence expert @John_Stupart is on DMC with answers. John has a Masters in War Studies from Kings College London, is the director of the African Defence Review and is on top of all conflict news through his work as Daily Maverickâs newsletter editor. Ask him all your questions in the thread below 
2 Likes
Hi John, thanks for taking questions - I have several!
Is it generally accepted that for popular uprisings to result in regime change, with or without external intervention, local military forces need to be willing to change allegiances against current powers? If so, are there any signs that Israeli and US attacks on Iran will aid in that process?
How much material damage has been dealt to Iran by current attacks? How far is this from the amount of damage which would force consideration of capitulation to external demands without troops invading?
How much general shipping and supply chain disruption should be expected in addition to the oil supply shocks as a result of the conflict?
Can attacks on Iran be expected to significantly impact the funding and materiel provisioned to non-state actors in the region? Can we expect other military actions to begin should states sense an advantage against antagonists supported by Iran?
Iâd greatly appreciate some thoughts on these questions. 
Welcome!
On regime change: generally-speaking what is needed is for the military to - at the minimum - step aside and do nothing. We saw this all the time in smaller power struggles, most recently in South Korea of all places. The problem with the current US/Israeli campaign is that it lacks any real attempt to dismantle the Iranian Republican Guard. The Ayatollah left a detailed succession plan in place, and his death is unlikely to completely disintegrate the military.
Even if it did, there is a real, major risk of the military dissolving into disparate armed bands. Think of the devastating effects of Iraq post-2003, or Libya after the fall of the state. Things get bad really quickly without stabilising boots on the ground. Trump has yet to indicate any real desire to go this far and seems content to bomb his way to victory.
On shipping: A lot. A fifth of the worldâs shipping moves through the Strait of Hormuz. Aside from oil price shocks, expect everything to increase in price. Just as well thereâs no cost-of-living crisis unfolding worldwideâŠ
The Houthis and Hezbollah are some of the Iranian-linked organisations already working on their own steam without direction from Iran. This will not be affected short term by Iranian defeat or capitulation. They are well-funded and capable of working on their own steam. Weâre already seeing other military action on these groups, however. Israel for example just this morning was considering a land invasion of Lebanon, even though Beirut is pretty hostile against Hezbollah. Itâs a mess, and itâs getting messier!
2 Likes
I wrote about the âescalation trapâ in First Thing today. Essentially the US-Israeli tactical victories in smashing people and âthingsâ with smart bombs is all well and good, but isnât achieving any noticeable strategic outcome. In fact it appears the Iranian military is more resolute than ever to fight back.
This in turn results in escalatory actions by the US - in this case mulling a ground invasion - and completely upending the scale of this conflict.
Something else to consider: Israeli and US anti-missile reserves are not infinite, and the longer this goes on the fewer defences both have to protect their forces from Iranian/Hezbollah/Houthi attack. There is a not-impossible future scenario approaching here where missile attacks become more and more effective. How much appetite for war will Israel and Washington have then?
1 Like
What stance do you think South Africa will take on the war (especially after South Africa brought a case against Israel to the ICJ) ?
@rosiekingwill also posted:
There is a lot of talk about the lawfulness of actions taken by the US or Israel. Firstly, are the rules (united nations I assume) enforceable. Secondly, do you believe these rules are good? Just because rules/laws exist, doesnât make them good (Apartheid laws or Nazi laws as an example). Or do these rules protect dictatorships and criminal governments (like Venezuela or Iran). Thirdly, is the UN not just a nice idea with little teeth and no power whatsoever? Seems like a bit of a joke this organization, I mean China and Russia have veto rights on the UN Security council(US as well), so it doesnât seem like anything actually gets done here.
South Africa will side with Iran, China and Russia. That is our MO. Back the dictatorships and non-democratic regimes. Makes you wonder why we are a democracy, when we actually donât support democracies, but rather dictatorships (also Venezuela or Zimbabwe). We have no credibility when we do this.
My view is that to cite the possibility of a nuclear exchange at this stage is only fearmongering. Neither Russia or China will go to war and risk a nuclear exchange with the USA over Iran. Russia has its hands full in Ukraine and Chinaâs focus is on Taiwan. None of the other the nuclear countries are likely to get involved and so the risk of the nuclear war is very low. Also, without the funding from Iran the Houthis Hezbollah and Hamas are unlikely to last as a forceful enemy and so the straits of Hormuz will not become a bottle neck for shipping. Effectively the Iranian navy has been destroyed. I would expect this war to last only about 3 to 4 weeks. It will result in regime change is another matter.
Weâre in a bit of a sticky wicket purely in the context of where we stand with Iran. Ie we just finished hosting an Iranian naval vessel here (it has been destroyed since) and are pretty explicitly pro-Iran.
If we had any sense of self-regulation, weâd do well as a nation to kinda just shut up and stay quiet for a few months.
International law is always an important measure to place these moments in history against. Bear in mind that - while the USA currently is ignoring much of what international laws says on unilateral military action - it remains as a moral standard upon which we should be upholding states to, regardless of whether leaders are actually held accountable.
What is clear in the 2nd Trump administration world order is that the usual business of the day is no more. Relying on large institutional orders such as the UN to resolve disputes and arbitrate global affairs is a thing of the past. Instead, weâre now seeing the Board of Peace (hah!) being counter-weighted by the South African-led Hague Group. Weâve moved from a global order of one or two superpowers and into the murky world of multilateralism. Everyone for themselves, in other words.
Fun fact: The UN General Assembly can vote in Article 109 to draft a new Charter. It still requires unanimous ratification by the Security Councilâs permanent members, but would be an interesting step towards reforming the UN.
Replying here to keep everything in one thread @rosiekingwill
Itâs too soon to tell, but it depends what we determine as a miscalculation. For Trump, a âquick winâ in killing the Ayatollah is already in his mind a glorious W for America.
If youâre anyone but the spray-tanned leader of the USA, this is an immense miscalculation. The economic ramifications of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the threat and closure to airspace over several major air hubs, and the obvious skyrocketing of the oil price will all have consequences that everyone, including us here in SA, will have to suffer.
1 Like
Hello John, thank you for taking questions. With the price of oil sky rocketing due to this war, I would like to know if South Africa ever replaced its strategic oil reserves after Tina decided we didnât need it? How are we placed to deal with both high oil prices and scarce supplies?
Hello John! I am late to the party here, but the war between the US, Israel and Iran is still far from over. In Jonathan Pieâs interpretation of tangerine manâs warbled messages - from four weeks to fo(u)rever.
I suspect that this war was not so much about planned objectives relating to Iran, such as eliminating a nuclear threat or regime change, but rather a war of distraction, when considering the relentless unfolding of ever more Epstein saga fallout and the tariff debacle intended to âmake America big againâ, while Israel, but very specifically Netanyahu, has shifted attention successfully away from their continuing genocide in Palestine, and now also incursions into Lebanon. Netanyahuâs support hinges on a state of- and at war. Trump has normalised unilateral actions on the world stage, but not all (some may argue all of them) have been beneficial to world order. Any further thoughts on this?
Also, with rapidly depleting munitions stockpiles, is it plausible to consider the war as a contrived boost to American arms manufacturing? Weapons manufacturing is the one industry that the US has kept in the US, unlike others. Would Trump really be so narcissistically inclined to start a war to produce economic gains, now that the tariff war was comprehensively defanged?
Last question: Does Kings College London offer a corollary to the speciality of your choice? Perhaps Peace Studies? Just curious. 
Devilâs advocate here. The temporary rise in oil prices may have the hydrocarbon energy sector realise some quick gains in the short term. But Mr Average will not raise a glass to rising profits of hydrocarbon energy giants, but instead would grumble at the reality of rising prices of everything. Would it be inconceivable that rising hydrocarbon energy costs could shift global long-term planning more rapidly towards the ever falling cost of renewable energy sources? A âwindmillâ on the White House lawn would make quite the statement!
My client eagerly awaits your expectations in this hypothetical scenario.
I will answer and comment in full when I have a chance, but the Peace Studies needs answering!
Every year Kingâs College War Studies and Bradford Peace Studies programmes have a football derby. It is appropriately called the âTolstoy Cupâ. War, perhaps rightly so, loses more often than it wins.
2 Likes
Hi John,
An investigation into the extensive domestic and international business and property holdings linked to both the previous and current Ayatollah, as well as the IRGC, would offer valuable insight into the economic architecture and underlying mindset of the current Iranian regime. I appreciate that much of this network is deliberately obscured through shell companies, sanctionsâevasion structures, and layered ownership, but a significant amount of information should still be accessible through openâsource records and investigative methods. Would your team consider exploring this for a future article? I think it would make for a compelling read.
This might be enough to restore my faith in humanity again! Found this snippet on the interwebs, of Bradford winning ways with a penalty shootout. https://youtu.be/xO9H3EbZgNw?si=R2y7RJ154wGejgKI
FP columnist Michael Hirsh probes this contradiction in his essay, âSo This, Finally, Is the âTrump Doctrine,ââ which examines the U.S. and Israeli military operations in Iran to try to make sense of the presidentâs broader strategic vision. âI think a world order that heâs in charge ofâthat to [Trump] is the definition of peace,â one source tells Hirsh.