Faizah Gilani -London
In a move that took the world by surprise, American president Donald Trump authorised a drone strike on Iraq, in order to kill Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s top commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s overseas operations arm, the Quds Force. He was considered the most powerful figure in Iran. America’s reasoning was that its intelligence services had received evidence of an imminent attack on Americans planned by Soleimani.
Relations between the US and Iran have always been frosty, but Trump’s decision to take out Soleimani threatened to wreak havoc not just in the Middle East but pose serious consequences for the global village as a whole. There was a real concern that America’s actions could potentially bring the world on the brink of World War 3, a scary and unsettling thought for sane minded people to digest.
Let us be clear, Soleimani was no saint. But here are the real questions – is the world a safer place, now that Soleimani is no longer in it? Can US actions have ramifications for the world over? Since Soleimani’s killing, the US administration from top to bottom has come out in defence of their actions, referring to Soleimani as one of the world’s biggest terrorist who needed to be eliminated. But hardly anyone knew his name, let alone knew of the man’s existence, until Trump brought him to the world’s attention.
But more importantly, there is actually a fear that the strike could potentially lead the world down a slippery slope. Trump and his administration and factions of American media have been referring to Soleimani as the “bad guy” in order to justify actions. But this is merely oversimplifying the situation. There are many “bad guys” all over the world, some sitting in high positions.
But can they be simply dealt with in this fashion? It is more complicated than that. And let us not forget that Soleimani was killed in Iraq, therefore violating Iraq’s sovereignty and violating international law. America’s actions could set a very dangerous precedent that has the potential to spiral out of control.
This kind of action can lead to a risky trend, if other world leaders decide to eliminate individuals of their choice. On what basis can such decisions be made? This is really tricky territory to be getting in to and will only make the world more unsafe than it already is.
One cannot look at this as either black or white because it is not clear cute. Responsible nations should not behave irresponsibly by actions that can have severe consequences that not only destabilise the Middle East, but also create a tense environment for the world over.
Some critics have questioned the timing of the airstrike, tying it in with Donald Trump’s impending impeachment. Some have also drawn comparisons with Bill Clinton back in 1998, when Clinton’s impeachment vote in the House was delayed following his authorisation for an air strike on Iraq. Donald Trump has lacked credibility even before he set foot in office, so this line of thought comes as no real surprise. Trump has been rattled over the impeachment process, and some have suggested that using Iran tensions as a smokescreen is a possibility.
Critics are also drawing comparisons with the Iraq war in 2003, under George. W. Bush, which turned out to be a complete and utter disaster in US history and foreign policy. The world was led to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, later proven to be untrue.
Years later and America still finds itself tied up in Iraq. This is precisely why sane minded people all over the world are apprehensive and fearful of recent developments. The Iraq war killed many Iraqis and left them displaced. There was also a heavy death toll for US soldiers fighting in the war they were duped in to, and today Iraq is still picking up the pieces.
But a lot has changed since the Iraq war, and the American public in general have become a lot smarter and politically attuned since then. The youth are also much more socially and politically aware and seem to have a better understanding of the world and foreign policy today, mostly due to the new age of social media. So, it is understandable that an anti-war protest took place in the US, with slogans saying, “no war with Iran.”
Yes, there will always be a faction of society that will beat the drums of war and stoke up nationalistic sentiment. And that is most likely to be from conservatives or some of Trump’s core base. But for most of the general public, domestic issues, issues that affect them on a daily basis, hold greater importance.
And it is not just the average American that is wary of another long, drawn out war. Trump has faced heavy criticism from the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, both from the democrat party and potential candidates for the upcoming elections. Sanders was critical of Trump’s decision, referring to it as an “assassination,” and calling it unconstitutional.
Anyone familiar with Sanders and his politics would not be surprised by his views, as he has always been anti-war, and was also a strong opponent to the Iraq war. Sanders was quick to point out that the US had violated Iraqi sovereignty with the strike.
There does seem to be a growing worry within the American political circuit over how far Trump is willing to go with Iran, and one can say that it mostly stems from their mistrust of Trump and lack of faith in his decision making. This might explain why congress has voted to limit Trump’s war power following tensions with Iran.
It is a clear indication of how congress is wary of the president’s impulsive nature. And of course, President Trump has made little effort in hiding his disdain for the Iranian regime. Donald Trump received severe backlash for tweeting that America would hit Iran’s cultural sites, if America was targeted.
Most people within America and citizens of the world expressed disgust over Trump’s comment, which was not befitting of a world leader. It was rightly argued that targeting cultural sites falls under war crimes and is something that a terrorist outfit would do.
Following the tweet, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave contradicting statements and tried to steer conversation away from Trump’s tweets. This has become a reoccurring theme in the Trump Administration with the president saying one thing, and his administration officials trying to downplay it, shielding the president away from trouble.
Trump may not be a word leader that evokes confidence, but it is his impulsive nature and reckless attitude that worries the most. Pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, an accomplishment under the Obama administration and something that former secretary of state John Kerry had worked tirelessly over, was a clear indicator of Trump’s approach to Iran from the onset.
The deal may have been flawed, but it served as a deterrent and there was no justifiable reason behind the withdrawal, and many saw it as an act of snubbing Obama’s legacy, a success that Trump wanted to disassociate himself from. The stark contrast between Trump and his predecessor, the former taking an aggressive approach, the latter showing a bit more restraint.
In retaliation to Soleimani’s killing, Iran hit two US airbases in Iraq, but no casualties were reported. However, events that ensued from this have shown us how innocent lives pay the price of egoistic leaders. The same morning of Iran’s retaliation, a Ukrainian airliner crashed after taking off from Iran.
After initial denial and calls of “psychological warfare tactics,” the Iranian regime finally admitted to accidently shooting down the plane. The regime’s admission led to major protests in the capital, Tehran, with angry protestors out on the streets, livid over what had happened.
The death of innocent passengers on the Ukrainian aircraft is not only a huge tragedy, it must be taken as a serious wake up call for both sides. This is what hot headed and reckless behaviour can lead to, a tragedy like this that tears families apart.
Even though Iran finally accepted its mistake, it will neither lessen the pain, nor will it bring back those that have gone. This was reckless and ill thought out by Iran. But the Americans should also shoulder some of the responsibility here, for being a party to this madness.
In his first tweet in the Farsi language, Trump warned Iran that “the world is watching,” telling the people of Iran that the US was standing with them in solidarity. Trump’s poking will only further infuriate the Iranian regime, that does not take kindly to public dissent or protest against the regime, which is what we are witnessing at present.
Even high-profile voices have been spoken out against the regime, such as the country’s first female taekwondo Olympic bronze medallist, Kimia Alizadeh, who has decided to defect. Kimia stated that she did not want to be a part of “hypocrisy, lies, injustice and flattery,” and that she was being used by the regime as a tool.
President Rouhani has urged national unity, following the shooting down of the plane, after days of denial. Rouhani and the rest of the regime know full well of the optics beaming through to the international audience from Tehran, and how it projects the regime in a much weaker light.
Despite cutting off means of communication such as the internet, people find ways to connect with the outside world and although the regime will try its best to contain, images of angry Iranians will surface on social media.
No doubt, Trump and Co will be keeping a close eye and secretly enjoying a flare up on the streets of Tehran, welcoming any opposition to the regime. But the powers that be in Iran have really done themselves no favours. One cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that Iranians have been living under an authoritarian regime, ruled by an iron fist, happily ready to crush any opposition with aggression.
There have been reports of bloodshed in recent protests over the Ukrainian aircraft and there is a serious worry over further violence. Trump’s constant poking aside, Iranian aggressiveness and repression of its own citizens is highly condemnable and cannot be justified. Iran has received a strong backlash both home and abroad over the Ukrainian airline, and the regime has been feeling the heat.
In a move to garner support and rally behind the revolutionary guard, Iran’s supreme leader Khamenei delivered Friday prayer sermon for the first time in 8 years. And this move was symbolic. Iranian regime and its clerical leaders have not been oblivious to the pressure building both at home and internationally. The supreme leader conducting Friday prayers was a move to unify the nation and bring people together at a tense time.
But protest and demonstration are not solely linked to the downing of the Ukraine aircraft, and this is not a handful of protestors showing dissent. This reflects the mood within the general public, that are genuinely fed up with the state of affairs within their own country. Iranians have also been protesting against Iran’s austerity policy, which has left the regime feeling rattled and losing control.
And this is where President Trump has the upper hand. As time has passed following the killing of Soleimani, Trump’s strategy appears to be clearer, and it is a fairly simple one. Trump wants to exert maximum pressure on Iran, in order to get the regime to drop its nuclear programme. And he knows that he could do all of this, without military action, or meddling for a regime change.
The regime is well aware of the impact. Iranian economy is already in a state of chaos and further sanctions would cause a complete collapse, leading to further unrest amongst its citizens. It is important to understand here that although the US has a history of interfering within the Middle East and has been guilty of involvement with regime changes world over, unrest within The Middle East right now stems from genuine frustration, not engineered by external or Western forces.
We are witnessing unrest within Lebanon as well, where anti-government protestors have been clashing with the police over the country’s political and financial systems. People are fed up of the economic crisis, inaction over corruption and demand for change. Huge protests have been taking place in Iraq as well.
Iraq has seen a wave of mass demonstrations and protests not only against American troops within the country, but also against Iran involvement. This protest movement has also garnered a lot of support among ordinary citizens that are anti-government. People are feeling a sense of frustration at being used as a political football, a sentiment that has been boiling over in recent times.
This is a significant angle to the US-Iran tension. Anti-establishment sentiments are rife and resentment towards governments catch on like wildfire. If this continues, it will inevitably inflame the Middle East, and Iran will find itself in the midst of it all. If the Middle East finds itself facing a people’s movement, the Iranian regime would not be able to contain negative sentiments and the regime will collapse. The US will not have to intervene. The regime will lose its grip naturally, and this is plaguing them.
All eyes are fixed on the Trump administration for the next few days, as it prepares to unveil the new Middle East peace plan, which has been in the pipeline for quite some time. But critics are already warning of further polarisation within the Middle East, under Trump’s new proposal. The plan is seen to be favourable towards Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, while leaving out the Palestinian leadership.
The Palestinian leadership have already rejected Donald Trump’s Middle East proposal, viewing it as part of his pro-Israeli policies. Trump riled up the Palestinians following his refusal to take on board the two-state solution. But it was his administration’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital, and to move the US embassy there, that really infuriated the Palestinians.
To make matters worse, there were major cuts in the humanitarian aid given to the Palestinians. Since then, Palestine has not politically engaged with the US administration. From this angle, it cannot be seen how the Palestinian leadership will return to the negotiating table, as it no longer sees the US as an honest broker in the dispute. It is also understood that the US will try to buy Palestinian support for the new deal, by dangling financial incentives. But it really seems unlikely for the leadership to accept it.
Trump says that he wants to find an everlasting solution to the hostility between Israel and Palestine, but he seems to be far too optimistic over the end result. He has ushered in his son in law, Jared Kushner, to engineer the process, but this is a deeply complex and emotionally charged conflict. And neither Trump nor Kushner appear to be the right choice for something that requires incredibly nuanced discussion.
Trump’s plans to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not only impact the two parties involved, it will flare up emotions in the volatile region. Iran had already said that the peace plan was “doomed” late 2019 and urged the Muslim world to support the people of Palestine and oppose the Middle East peace plan. The supreme leader went as far as to say that Trump’s proposal was “a crime against humanity.”
But Iran’s tough words do not just stem from support on a humanitarian level, or for the sake of Muslim brotherhood. Iran sees this peace deal as a threat to itself and is looking out for its own interests. It is understood that the US is holding out on an Arab-Israeli alliance which would work as an anti-Iran alliance to further weaken Tehran’s position. Trump administration and Jared Kushner seem to be hoping that their new proposal would normalise Arab- Israeli relations and keep Iran in check.
This explains why Iran has been up in arms over the possibility of a new deal within the region. Striking this deal, however, seems like a long shot, with a lot at stake. Saudi Arabia might be more than willing to jump on board without hesitation, but it might be a deeply unpopular decision made by Arab leaders, who could face severe backlash among their respective people. In the process, it could further weaken the position of Arab leaders and further destabilise their respective countries.
But this deal seems very short-sighted, highly unlikely to succeed and not fair to both sides. At the core of this deal is the Palestinian resistance, which remains unwilling to budge. President Trump is due to unveil the exact details of his new peace plan on Tuesday 28th January, the same day Netanyahu will be visiting the White House. And this all seems to be a part of Trump’s latest strategy to appear proactive with regards to the Middle East. We are talking about a president facing impeachment, while also campaigning for re-election.
Whether it is taming Iran or putting this new peace plan into action, Trump would want to be seen as the guy that gets the job done. The American president knows that he is in a dominant position right now to boss his way around. And this is why he has also proposed a “Trump Deal,” to replace the Iran Nuclear Deal America was once part of.
President Trump has received the backing of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has given his support for the Trump Deal to replace the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal. France and Germany have also criticised Tehran, expressing concerns over violation of previous terms that had been outlined. But Tehran is not on board with this new Trump Deal, with President Rouhani calling the deal “strange.”
Tehran’s rejection of the deal comes as no surprise. There is no trust between Washington and Tehran, with the latter expressing displeasure over not receiving economic benefits of the previous deal. At this stage it seems highly unlikely that the Iranian regime will accept Trump’s latest offer and will ultimately lead to the re-imposing of UN sanctions.
How things develop from here onwards, remain to be seen. But this constant to and fro only further adds to the tense atmosphere and creates a level of uncertainty. Heightened tensions following Soleimani’s death have reduced considerably, and there are reasons behind this on both sides.
Iran’s crumbling economy would not be able to carry the burden of real conflict with the US, and the regime is under no illusion. Although in difficult times people tend to rally behind leadership, it would be a real gamble for the Iranian regime, considering how disappointed its people actually are.
Also, conflict with Iran would be going against Trump’s isolationist policy that he promised in 2016. He had vowed to put America first. And although Trump may not be considered as a man of his word, this would be a huge gamble for him to take as well. But Trump knows that he can flex his muscles without any direct military action at this stage. He finds himself in a far more comfortable position than his Iranian counterpart.
Tehran would be under no illusion over its position. The Iranian regime knows that it cannot go toe to toe with the US, therefore it relies more on rhetoric and exchange of harsh words with Trump. Trump administration continues to threaten fresh sanctions while Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani has said that “US forces are insecure in the region,” and they should leave the Middle East, along with all other foreign troops. Rouhani has also insisted that the “US must apologise to Iran for all previous crimes.”
But the US is already weighing up its options to target Iran’s construction, mining and manufacturing sectors. There are also talks of sanctions targeting Iranian state shipping lines that will most likely take effect from June. Trump is really looking at all possibilities to cripple the Iranian regime and the economy, which will sadly impact the people, who will ultimately suffer.
With a character like Trump in office and a heavy-handed authoritarian Iranian regime, fresh tension between US and Iran cannot be ruled out. And this is poses a serious threat to other nations that run the risk of being dragged into unnecessary conflict, if the situation was to flare up. Some might find themselves in an awkward or difficult position, forced to take sides. This kind of environment could potentially impact other countries and result in strained relations.
The Middle East is messy, deeply complicated and a hotbed for conflict. Anything that was to happen between the US and Iran would lead to key players taking positions that serve their self-interest, such as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, who would be willing to assert themselves. But reluctant players could also be pushed into the forefront and bullied into taking a position. Pakistan is a prime example.
Pakistan should consider itself fortunate for not finding itself sandwiched between the US and Iran. Prime Minister Imran Khan has always maintained an anti-war position and was a huge critic of Pakistan’s role in the war on terror, arguing that it was not Pakistan’s war to begin with. And in recent times, Pakistan’s foreign policy has shifted more towards neutrality, committing to promoting peace.
This could have been a tricky situation. But credit where it is due, the government took a smart position and sent foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on a peace mission, also meeting with officials in Iran to diffuse tensions and mediate.
Pakistan immediately outlined its position, with Imran Khan making it clear that Pakistan would not be a part of any war, words echoed by former ISPR spokesperson Asif Ghafoor, another signal that the government and military are on the same page. Pakistan has to take notes from history and remind itself of past mistakes which led to a terrible wave of violence that came at its door post 9/11.
Pakistan must continue with an open policy of extending good relations with all its neighbours and allies, therefore resist any temptation of being pushed into a conflict that has nothing to do with its people. It also has enough on its plate with a recovering economy and India breathing down its neck. In these times, self-interest is paramount.
But the bottom line is war never ends with a winner. No one achieves anything from conflict, unless you are a defence contractor. At the end of it all war brings destruction and human suffering. America and Iran may not be going to war, and a major world crisis may have been averted. But the extent to which egoistic leaders will go to gain the upper hand and show superiority should never be underestimated. People are dragged into conflict, without their consent, and they ultimately pay the price. Conflict is just a vicious cycle that never sees an end, and history stands as a witness to it.
The writer has studied History and Politics at Queen Mary, University of London. And Middle East Studies at SOAS, University of London.
