Jehangir Khattak
Three I’s were the high points of January 2020 for the United States: Iran, impeachment and Iowa. These are not just words but symbols of monumental consequences for the US and the world. President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, the stiff competition among the Democratic presidential candidates to score a victory in Iowa caucus for an early momentum for the ticket to the White House besides the US-Iran spat, all set new neo normal of different shades and kinds.
Thankfully, the two sides, for now, have avoided a full blow war following the assassination of General Qassem Suleiman in Baghdad on January 3. However, it has set the stage for a potentially protracted proxy conflict in the Middle East that could well become the new neo normal for the region, experts in the US fear.
Legally, according to American experts, Suleimani’s assassination was a violation of the international law. Iran construed it as an act of war. “As a Harvard Law School graduate who has written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of national and international law,” Benjamin B Ferencz, 99, a World War II veteran, wrotein a letter in The New York Times. Its illegality aside, the action set a dangerous precedent that can become a neo normal for international adversarial engagement. Under the US Constitution, only the US Congress has the authority to declare war.
Unsurprisingly, six days after the drone strike on General Suleimani’s vehicle near Baghdad Airport, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passeda resolution to limit the president’s war powers. Seventy-seven of the current House of Representatives’ 435 members are veterans. The non-binding resolution, practically of no consequence to President Trump, shows how much the Americans, despite despising General Suleimani’s proxy wars in the region, opposed the move. it’s divisive, dangerous and fraught with unintended consequences of accidental wars.
Such wars become a real threat when transparency is lost in the hyped rhetoric and bellicosity. It happened both in the US and Iran. The public in both the countries demanded more transparency on the dramatic chain of events that unfolded since the targeting of General Suleimani, the downing of a Ukrainian airliner in a bloody mistake by the Iranian military on January 8 and the extent of damage the Iranian missile strikes caused to the American men and military assets at the Al Asad base hours earlier.
President Trump was contradicted by the US military over his claim that there were no casualties in the Iranian missile strikes. Pentagon admitted on January 24 that the Iranian missiles had left 34 US service members with brain injuries. Trump’s claim of General Suleimani’s plotting to attack four US embassies has also been contested by his own Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Asked on CBS’ Face the Nation if there had been a specific or tangible threat from Suleimani, Esper said: “I didn’t see one with regards to four embassies.”
The Iranian government on its part has been facing similar questions over its initial denials of the accidental shooting of the airliner by its military. Tehran is trying to pacify its restive citizens over the shooting and has announced a few arrests as well. However, it is neither handing over the Black Box for analysis to a third country nor giving an explanation as to why it kept its airspace open on January 8 at a time of an expected US attack. It remains unclear if it was poor Iranian planning or deliberate use of civilian air traffic as a human shield against a possible US attack.
Pakistan closed its airspace on more than one occasion for civilian flights every time tensions go high with India.
Neo normal proxy wars
General Suleimani’s assassination has raised new questions about Iran’s own risky and long-sustained neo normal — use of militias to expand its influence in the Middle East, South and West Asia. Media has been abuzz with reports of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ support and control of dozens of militias in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Iran has used these militias, which outnumber the strength of the revolutionary guards itself, to challenge the influence and footprints of the US, its Arab allies and Israel. Using its Shiite appeal, Iran has weaponized sectarianism in much of the region, in a stiff competition with the Salafite Arab monarchies, especially Saudi Arabia.
New questions are being raised about how instability in Iran, its international isolation and economic squeeze could impact its control of these militias is unclear.
Did Impeachment and the US Elections Stoke Iran Tensions?
Many in the US consider President Trump’s handling of the crisis in political rather than strategic context. His critics claim one of the reasons for Trump’s stunning action was to shift public focus from his impeachment trial and to keep his base energized. These critics insist that Trump’s deliberate attempt to avoid war with Iran was also more of a domestic political compulsion than a strategic necessity. Doing so would have broken his election promise – no new unending wars!
Such inferences may carry weight. The Iran tensions did give President Trump centerstage, away from the humiliating limelight of impeachment trial. But did it expand his support base? There is little evidence to show that it did, even though it did re-solidify his support base, which remains largely intact.
However, the incident did not shift the Americans’ attention from the impeachment trial for too long. The trial reached its logical conclusion but left behind deeper divisions among on both sides of the isle. For Democrats, whose sole objective seemed to be convincing the American voters that the Trump administration is dishonest and unfair. Their failed efforts to get important documents and bring key witnesses to build the case against Trump also seemed part of this strategy.
The Democratic Party’s overall impeachment strategy also left many people scratching their heads. The time Speaker Nancy Palosi chose for sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, just days before the Iowa caucus, was also perplexing. She resisted calls for sending the impeachment articles since December 18, 2019, when the House of Representatives impeached Trump.
Iowa caucus has traditionally played a critical role in US presidential elections. Since its introduction in 1972, the caucus winners from both parties have become nominee in the general elections over half the time. However, only three won the presidential election to reach White House
The Senate impeachment trial virtually left the campaign stage to the front runner Joe Biden and the surging Pete Buttigieg. The US Senate enforced rigid rules during the trail – no cellphone and absence from the floor allowed. Even the Senators could not drink coffee during the proceedings. They could enjoy only water and milk! Thus, Biden’s key rivals – Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizbeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar – were literally bound to the Senate floor for the trial, at a time when they should have been in Iowa, canvassing support. Was it Palosi’s miscalculation or the Democratic Party establishment’s neo normal of engineering the success of its favorite candidate, is anybody’s guess. But the Democratic Party supporters still remember familiar machinations of 2016!
The writer is a New York based senior journalist and commentator. He tweets at @JehangirKhattak
