![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nairiporterTrump tweeted that his actions in Iraq were meant to prevent war. Al Quds was responsible for amping up disruptive activities throughout the region, the rationale goes. Soleimani himself was personally responsible for hundreds of American deaths. So he had to go. But is this really the way to prevent war in the short and long run?
The fact of the matter is, it is too hard to predict the repercussions from this preemptive strike. Trump's unpredictable, unilateral, whimsical manner of doing politics, also doesn't help much. His actions found everyone surprised, from ally to foe. Which is why America's allies to not hurry to applaud the act (save for Israel of course). It is clear that Iran will react in some way, since a foreign nation has sanctioned and performed the assassination of a high-ranking member of the Iranian government. Anyone would react.
Iran had been acting rather tamely in recent months. The US did accuse them of downing a US drone in the Persian gulf in June, and for the attacks on Saudi oil refineries in September, and for the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. In fact, Iran's involvement was never established or proven. But one thing was certain: those were acts that had been meticulously planned, and they did claim human lives and considerable economic assets. What we can expect now is a retaliation of much greater proportions. And this is what makes the situation extremely flammable.
Soleimani's assassination changes the game in that it breaks the established rules of engagement. This means that preemptive strikes will be replacing the deterrence logic more and more, and with that, all stability and predictability goes out the window. Soleimani's demise certainly will not scare off the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or disrupt their activities. He will be replaced. And the Guard will step up their asymmetric warfare. So I don't really see how the act could have a win-win outcome.
What's worse, now Iran has the propaganda ammo to claim the US bears legal responsibility for the assassination of the member of the government of a sovereign nation. They have already hinted that they will take all legal steps as per international law, and treat the attack as a terrorist act. Naming America a terrorist regime, that is. Not that Trump cares about these things anyway.
In the US itself, the assassination has divided the public. Many consider it a reckless move. Sen. Christopher Murphy for example said that one of the reasons we don't murder foreign political leaders is that we believe such actions would lead to the deaths of more, nor fewer Americans. Now Trump's actions are risking to provoke a large-scale regional war.
The Arab world may consider itself a sectarian rival to Shia Iran, but they are solidary as fellow Muslims first and foremost, so Trump's motivations for this act are also in question here. He may have decided to demonstrate that he is still a serious player in the region, and he was concerned that after America's recent cautiousness he might be considered a dog that barks but doesn't bite. So he decided to show some teeth. Or maybe he was really just pissed by Soleimani's tweet assault, I don't know. Nobody knows what was in Trump's head, if anything. He could have made a calculated move after all, aiming to distract attention back home from his impeachment woes, and look tough enough just in time for the upcoming presidential elections. Whatever his intentions, in foreign policy he has mostly conducted himself as a lame, tame leader who would rather throw his hands in the air and leave a region of strategic importance for his country, and give up the initiative to his geopolitical rivals. Now he may have decided to use the opportunity to amend that through an extreme, outrageous act. In his own sick way, he may have partly achieved that, mind you. At least temporarily.
No one knows for sure if Trump was fully aware of all the risks such an act would bring. Having seen a lot of Trump by now, I'm more prone to believe that he didn't think of such things at the time, and neither is he listening to his advisors about it now when he is still doubling and tripling down with threats against both Iran and Iraq on Twitter. He may have genuinely believed the act would amend his image of a scared little puppet at the international scene - and he was wrong of course. Now everyone is convinced he is insane.
Ultimately, Trump will have to explain in clear terms what sort of war he wanted to prevent with his actions, since that is the justification he is making. Also, he will have to convince the American people that he is prepared for all the risks that the assassination of a foreign top official brings with itself. Because right now, his claims that his purpose is to keep America far away from the perils of war in the Middle East, kind of ring rather hollow.
The fact of the matter is, it is too hard to predict the repercussions from this preemptive strike. Trump's unpredictable, unilateral, whimsical manner of doing politics, also doesn't help much. His actions found everyone surprised, from ally to foe. Which is why America's allies to not hurry to applaud the act (save for Israel of course). It is clear that Iran will react in some way, since a foreign nation has sanctioned and performed the assassination of a high-ranking member of the Iranian government. Anyone would react.
Iran had been acting rather tamely in recent months. The US did accuse them of downing a US drone in the Persian gulf in June, and for the attacks on Saudi oil refineries in September, and for the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. In fact, Iran's involvement was never established or proven. But one thing was certain: those were acts that had been meticulously planned, and they did claim human lives and considerable economic assets. What we can expect now is a retaliation of much greater proportions. And this is what makes the situation extremely flammable.
Soleimani's assassination changes the game in that it breaks the established rules of engagement. This means that preemptive strikes will be replacing the deterrence logic more and more, and with that, all stability and predictability goes out the window. Soleimani's demise certainly will not scare off the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or disrupt their activities. He will be replaced. And the Guard will step up their asymmetric warfare. So I don't really see how the act could have a win-win outcome.
What's worse, now Iran has the propaganda ammo to claim the US bears legal responsibility for the assassination of the member of the government of a sovereign nation. They have already hinted that they will take all legal steps as per international law, and treat the attack as a terrorist act. Naming America a terrorist regime, that is. Not that Trump cares about these things anyway.
In the US itself, the assassination has divided the public. Many consider it a reckless move. Sen. Christopher Murphy for example said that one of the reasons we don't murder foreign political leaders is that we believe such actions would lead to the deaths of more, nor fewer Americans. Now Trump's actions are risking to provoke a large-scale regional war.
The Arab world may consider itself a sectarian rival to Shia Iran, but they are solidary as fellow Muslims first and foremost, so Trump's motivations for this act are also in question here. He may have decided to demonstrate that he is still a serious player in the region, and he was concerned that after America's recent cautiousness he might be considered a dog that barks but doesn't bite. So he decided to show some teeth. Or maybe he was really just pissed by Soleimani's tweet assault, I don't know. Nobody knows what was in Trump's head, if anything. He could have made a calculated move after all, aiming to distract attention back home from his impeachment woes, and look tough enough just in time for the upcoming presidential elections. Whatever his intentions, in foreign policy he has mostly conducted himself as a lame, tame leader who would rather throw his hands in the air and leave a region of strategic importance for his country, and give up the initiative to his geopolitical rivals. Now he may have decided to use the opportunity to amend that through an extreme, outrageous act. In his own sick way, he may have partly achieved that, mind you. At least temporarily.
No one knows for sure if Trump was fully aware of all the risks such an act would bring. Having seen a lot of Trump by now, I'm more prone to believe that he didn't think of such things at the time, and neither is he listening to his advisors about it now when he is still doubling and tripling down with threats against both Iran and Iraq on Twitter. He may have genuinely believed the act would amend his image of a scared little puppet at the international scene - and he was wrong of course. Now everyone is convinced he is insane.
Ultimately, Trump will have to explain in clear terms what sort of war he wanted to prevent with his actions, since that is the justification he is making. Also, he will have to convince the American people that he is prepared for all the risks that the assassination of a foreign top official brings with itself. Because right now, his claims that his purpose is to keep America far away from the perils of war in the Middle East, kind of ring rather hollow.
