Regular readers of this blog, and those who glance at it from time to time, will know that I am not a great fan of the regime in Iran. I have highlighted the human rights violations of this state against its own people and others for a number of years. I shall shed no tears over the liquidation of Qassem Soleimani, who was a key figure in the Iranian leadership and both a supporter and initiator of its repressive policies at home, and aggressive policies abroad. As The Guardian says:
"Suleimani, 62, oversaw the external operations of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards and was the architect of an expansion of Iranian influence across the Middle East in recent decades, controlling politicians and proxy militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen among other places."
Nor do I deny the right of the USA to take action to defend its citizens anywhere in the world. The Pentagon claims that militants under his command had killed and wounded hundreds of US servicemen and were planning to kill more. Sulemani appears to have been involved in such activities since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 where, under the subsequent occupation, Shia militants under Iranian direction attacked both US and British troops with Iranian-supplied equipment. Sulemani's demise has been welcomed in parts of Syria and Iraq; Iranian exiles in the UK have been phoning talk radio programmes to express jubilation at his death.
So, do I share in this jubilation? Not really. To quote the same Guardian article:
" His killing triggered rejoicing in parts of Iraq and Syria, where he was implicated in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, but the general reaction in world capitals was one of apprehension."
Many people in the UK have criticised the killing, in particular Jeremy Corbyn, questioning the legality of the killing and the lack of notice to America's allies. These issues will doubtless be discussed again and again in the coming weeks, but I would like to express my concern on pragmatic grounds.
Firstly, there is the small matter of ISIS. This group has taken a severe drubbing in recent months but is not totally defeated, and is trying to reorganise on the ground. Like it or not, Sulemani's fighters are a vital part of the struggle against ISIS and this is hardly the time to deprive them of their leader and thus to alienate them. It's rather like Churchill and Roosevelt assassinating Stalin in 1944, before the final German defeat. Unless they're stupid, ISIS will see an opportunity to strike a deal with the Shia militias.
Secondly, the timing of the attack was potentially dangerous to US and western expat workers in Iraq and Iran. The US government has advised its nationals to leave Iraq, but they would have become vulnerable to reprisal attack from the very moment of the assassination. Even if every US expat escapes safely, there will be plenty of other western nationals left behind to be attacked or held hostage. And, as we know, the Iranians already have a number of hostages in custody, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Their position must now rank as downright perilous.
Next, President Trump is convinced that by threatening attacks upon Iran, he will deter any future hostile activity. As the BBC comments:
"President Trump, who authorised the attack on Soleimani on Friday - an option refused by both Presidents Bush and Obama as too risky - said on Saturday the US was ready to strike 52 sites "important to Iran & the Iranian culture"."
A more pragmatic approach would be to learn from three historical case examples of what happens when aerial bombing is used to try and subdue a civilian population: Britain 1940-41; Germany, 1942-45; North Viet-Nam, 1964-73. All these bombing offensives failed to break civilian morale, and only served to unite the native populations behind their leadership. There already seems to be some sign of this happening in Iran.
This "big stick" operation will not succeed in its main aim. Like it or not (and I don't), the Iranian regime has many supporters and Sulemani will be replaced, hydra-like, by someone perhaps even more militant, determined upon revenge. At the very least, I would expect the attacks on US installations in Iraq to continue and possibly increase.
While there are no good pragmatic results likely to flow from this situation, one positive result could be the beginning of the end for Populism worldwide. Complex political problems cannot be solved by simple actions. We have seen this with the trauma of Brexit, the comedy of the Mexican border wall, and I expect this crisis will be no different - apart from the fact that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people will be killed and injured.
This action is a typical example of Trump's stupidity. While there is no doubt that the regime in Iran has been a malign force in world politics, the USA's abiding view of itself as "A City upon a Hill", a nation that is divinely appointed to transform the world, is based on its absolute certainty of its superiority over all other nations.
ReplyDeleteThis delusion has justified US interference, including bombings and invasions, of dozens of other nations. The USA regards such actions as its inalienable right, despite the fact that they usually result in unforeseen and often undesirable consequences, as in Iraq and Libya.
Two thoughts spring to mind:
Firstly, it is difficult to demand that Iran abide by international law while breaking it yourself. In particular, the position of Western prisoners in Iran such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe must now be considerably more perilous, but I doubt Trump would even recognise her name.
Secondly, the regime in Iran was becoming increasingly unpopular at home. This assassination has united the populace behind the leadership, with even opponents of the government seeing the killing as an affront to Iranian sovereignty and dignity. Consequently I doubt the Iranian government is quite as furious as it makes out.
While US foreign policy is in the hands of a vain, moronic president who is convinced of his own infallibility and who deals with potential consequences of his decisions, not with caution, but with bluster and threats, we won't see any positive outcomes.