"This didn't need to happen", tweeted Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor to Barack Obama, following the news that Iran had responded to the assassination of its top military commander by launching ballistic missiles at US military bases in neighbouring Iraq. The days since the Trump administration's decision to proceed with the drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's elite Quds Force, have seen wall-to-wall speculation regarding the impact of the death of the second most powerful official in the Iranian government. How would Iran respond, having vowed "severe revenge" on the United States? Exactly how much further would the simmering tensions in the Persian Gulf escalate? And what were the implications for US policy in Iraq, where American and Iraqi troops are engaged in counter-ISIS operations?
These questions have since been answered, at least for the time being. Following the missile attacks on the Al-Asad and Ibril airbases near Baghdad, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayotollah Khamenei, described his government's response as a "slap in the face" to the U.S., before later remarking that these strikes were "only the beginning". President Donald Trump has reported that Iran "appears to be standing down'" following the retaliatory strikes, which Secretary of Defence Mark Esper stressed resulted in no casualties among US personnel at either base (contradicting remarks from the Ayatollah), thus apparently removing any potential for further escalation in the short-term. Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US servicemembers in a non-binding resolution. Curiously. only Shi'ite members of parliament were present at said vote, indicating an emboldened Iranian regime seeking to use its influence in Iraq to advance its own geopolitical goals in the Middle-East, in the wake of widespread popular opposition to US military presence in the region in the wake of Soleimani's demise.
Yet even if events on the ground appear unlikely to shift a great deal from the type of low-intensity engagements between Iran-sponsored Shi'ite militias and US personnel, it appears that the biggest political flashpoint is within the United States itself, as the debate between Democrats and Republicans on the Trump administration's Iran policy intensifies. The Democrat leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said in a statement "The Administration has conducted tonight's strikes...without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iran...[and] without the consultation of the Congress" before calling upon the White House to provide the legislature with a full briefing of the intelligence indicating the "imminent threat" cited as justification for the assassination. Meanwhile in the Senate, Ro Khanna and Democratic presidential frontrunner Bernie Sanders introduced legislation that would block Congressional funding for any unauthorised military action "in or against Iran."
The responses from Republicans, namely branding Democrats as sympathetic to Iran and terrorism, merely served to increase the animosity on both sides of the debate. Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley told Fox News "The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat presidential candidates." The Vice-President Mike Pence, in an attempt to provide legal justification for the unauthorised use of force, propagated a conspiracy that Iran was somehow involved in the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre. Pence tweeted that Soleimani "assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11th terrorist attacks against the United States", contradicting the Bush administration's own 9/11 commission which found "no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning of what later became the 9/11 attack." Finally, the President himself blamed Barack Obama's Iran Nuclear Deal for the regime's ballistic missile attacks, arguing that "the missiles fired at us last night were paid for with funds made available by the last administration," in reference to the $150 million of frozen Iranian assets released as the regime agreed to roll back its rapidly developing nuclear programme.
In light of such polarised discourse, it becomes more and more difficult to adopt a nuanced position on the issue of US foreign policy to Iran. Those who criticise the President's decision are labelled terrorist-sympathisers or anti-American by Republicans, whilst well-intentioned young progressives and left-wing activists and politicians who ardently oppose further US military intervention in the Middle-East must be careful to avoid granting the Iranian leadership more sympathy than it deserves. The Iranian regime supports the murderous Assad dictatorship in Syria, bankrolls terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, perpetrates a destructive civil war in Yemen and represses its own people domestically. Yet this cannot in any way justify the reckless nature of the decision taken by Trump, nor do these facts make any who oppose the assassination of the odious Soleimani sympathetic to the views of the Iranian government. Both the Bush and Obama administrations were similarly presented with the option of assassinating Soleimani, and ruled that such a move would be highly provocative and destabilising for the region. By today's standards, does that make Bush anti-American in the same way that the label is still thrown at Obama, the President whose tenure saw an historic diplomatic breakthrough with Iran?
There remains, in fact, a very compelling argument that this cycle of escalation began the moment Trump withdrew the US from the Iran Nuclear Deal two years ago. Between 2015 and 2018, during which time the US and Iran were both party to the agreement, not only did Tehran agree to ship 98% of its fissile material out of the country and submit to the most comprehensive inspections routine ever designed for a civilian nuclear programme, but rocket attacks against US personnel in Iraq, which would form the legal basis for Soleimani's assassination, were also halted in this period. To support his decision to reverse the previous administration's work, Trump cited Iran's ballistic missile programme and continued malign presence in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. But this does not take away from the fact that the agreement, although deeply flawed, was accomplishing its goal of stopping nuclear proliferation in an already highly dangerous part of the world, and that Iran was in compliance with its terms when the US withdrew. Now, as sanctions against Tehran are re-installed, the regime has announced that it will no longer abide by the enrichment limits enshrined in the deal. Trump tweeted last week that "IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON", but his actions have made that eventuality more likely than before, whilst the decision to leave an agreement that was working has undermined any credibility his administration may have had in negotiating a replacement deal.
Meanwhile, as if to show how easily circumstances can shift, the political situation in Iran itself has taken one unexpected turn after another in recent months. In November, the streets of Tehran were the site of mass demonstrations initiated by Iranians in opposition to the regime shutting down the country's internet. It was this first sign of popular discontent toward the regime that originally lead opponents of Trump's Iran policy to criticise the assassination of Soleimani on the basis that a common enemy in the form of an aggressive United States would only serve to unite the Iranian people with the very leadership against which they were protesting just weeks ago, as evidenced by the chants of "Death to America" at Soleimani's funeral. And that could well have proven to be the case, if tragedy were not to strike in the form of Ukrainian Airlines flight PS752. The streets of Tehran are again filled with protestors demanding justice for their 82 fellow Iranian citizens killed when the plane was mistakenly shot down in the hours following the ballistic missile attacks in Iraq.
At this very moment, a different dimension of the conflict appears to be taking form, one in which both the US and Iranian governments will fight over control of the emerging narrative. The Americans and much of the international community have rightly expressed solidarity with the Iranian people and their right to a democratically elected government. However, this does not mean that the support of the Americans will be embraced by the protestors in Tehran- the Iranian people are as likely to remain highly distrustful of American intervention in their country as they are outraged by their own leadership's callous response to the deaths of their compatriots. Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif has also blamed US aggression as the cause of the accident, but only time will tell whether these demonstrations will have any impact on the ground in Tehran, or which side will claim to have the full support of the Iranian people. It is highly reasonable to assume that the Iranian people will support neither their own oppressive government, nor its superpower adversary. The lesson from this entire sorry episode is that, whenever great powers clash, innocent people are always the first in the line of fire. This didn't need to happen.
Written by Ben Seymour
In light of such polarised discourse, it becomes more and more difficult to adopt a nuanced position on the issue of US foreign policy to Iran. Those who criticise the President's decision are labelled terrorist-sympathisers or anti-American by Republicans, whilst well-intentioned young progressives and left-wing activists and politicians who ardently oppose further US military intervention in the Middle-East must be careful to avoid granting the Iranian leadership more sympathy than it deserves. The Iranian regime supports the murderous Assad dictatorship in Syria, bankrolls terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, perpetrates a destructive civil war in Yemen and represses its own people domestically. Yet this cannot in any way justify the reckless nature of the decision taken by Trump, nor do these facts make any who oppose the assassination of the odious Soleimani sympathetic to the views of the Iranian government. Both the Bush and Obama administrations were similarly presented with the option of assassinating Soleimani, and ruled that such a move would be highly provocative and destabilising for the region. By today's standards, does that make Bush anti-American in the same way that the label is still thrown at Obama, the President whose tenure saw an historic diplomatic breakthrough with Iran?
There remains, in fact, a very compelling argument that this cycle of escalation began the moment Trump withdrew the US from the Iran Nuclear Deal two years ago. Between 2015 and 2018, during which time the US and Iran were both party to the agreement, not only did Tehran agree to ship 98% of its fissile material out of the country and submit to the most comprehensive inspections routine ever designed for a civilian nuclear programme, but rocket attacks against US personnel in Iraq, which would form the legal basis for Soleimani's assassination, were also halted in this period. To support his decision to reverse the previous administration's work, Trump cited Iran's ballistic missile programme and continued malign presence in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. But this does not take away from the fact that the agreement, although deeply flawed, was accomplishing its goal of stopping nuclear proliferation in an already highly dangerous part of the world, and that Iran was in compliance with its terms when the US withdrew. Now, as sanctions against Tehran are re-installed, the regime has announced that it will no longer abide by the enrichment limits enshrined in the deal. Trump tweeted last week that "IRAN WILL NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON", but his actions have made that eventuality more likely than before, whilst the decision to leave an agreement that was working has undermined any credibility his administration may have had in negotiating a replacement deal.
Meanwhile, as if to show how easily circumstances can shift, the political situation in Iran itself has taken one unexpected turn after another in recent months. In November, the streets of Tehran were the site of mass demonstrations initiated by Iranians in opposition to the regime shutting down the country's internet. It was this first sign of popular discontent toward the regime that originally lead opponents of Trump's Iran policy to criticise the assassination of Soleimani on the basis that a common enemy in the form of an aggressive United States would only serve to unite the Iranian people with the very leadership against which they were protesting just weeks ago, as evidenced by the chants of "Death to America" at Soleimani's funeral. And that could well have proven to be the case, if tragedy were not to strike in the form of Ukrainian Airlines flight PS752. The streets of Tehran are again filled with protestors demanding justice for their 82 fellow Iranian citizens killed when the plane was mistakenly shot down in the hours following the ballistic missile attacks in Iraq.
At this very moment, a different dimension of the conflict appears to be taking form, one in which both the US and Iranian governments will fight over control of the emerging narrative. The Americans and much of the international community have rightly expressed solidarity with the Iranian people and their right to a democratically elected government. However, this does not mean that the support of the Americans will be embraced by the protestors in Tehran- the Iranian people are as likely to remain highly distrustful of American intervention in their country as they are outraged by their own leadership's callous response to the deaths of their compatriots. Iran's foreign minister Javad Zarif has also blamed US aggression as the cause of the accident, but only time will tell whether these demonstrations will have any impact on the ground in Tehran, or which side will claim to have the full support of the Iranian people. It is highly reasonable to assume that the Iranian people will support neither their own oppressive government, nor its superpower adversary. The lesson from this entire sorry episode is that, whenever great powers clash, innocent people are always the first in the line of fire. This didn't need to happen.
Written by Ben Seymour
Comments
Post a Comment