Monthly Archives: January 2020

Donald Trump’s order to kill Qassem Suleimani is on solid constitutional ground

https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/donald-trump-s-order-to-kill-qassem-suleimani-is-on-solid-constitutional-ground-1.959707

But whether the US administration is prepared to deal with the consequences of a dramatic escalation with Iran is an entirely different matter.

People around the world, and certainly in America, were taken aback to learn that US President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike to kill Qassem Suleimani, one of Iran’s top commanders, and Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis, head of the pro-Iranian militia in Iraq, Kataib Hezbollah. Opinion in the country is divided about the constitutional legitimacy and wisdom of the move but rather less about whether this administration is prepared to deal with the consequences of a dramatic escalation with Iran.

Suleimani was head of the Quds Force, a unit in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s paramilitary militia, and has led his country’s efforts to expand its hegemony and spread its influence in the Arab world over the past 20 years. He was probably the most significant military figure in the history of the “Islamic Republic” and, arguably, second in influence only to its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Killing him was the most significant blow Mr Trump could have struck against the Tehran regime anywhere outside of Iran itself.

The US government estimates Suleimani was responsible for the deaths of more than 600 US troops, largely in Iraq, since 2003. So, except for some far left and right-wing voices and a newly-emerging neo-isolationist think tank, people who follow the developments in the Middle East largely agree that the Iranian terrorist ringmaster got what he deserved.

However, major foreign policy developments, especially in an election year, are invariably subjects of ideological and partisan contention – and this is no exception. Among major figures in the US Congress, the division largely falls along party lines. Members of the Republican Party are applauding while those of the Democratic Party are seeking some way of expressing concern without being unpatriotic.

Within the mainstream, which is generally careful to welcome Suleimani’s demise, the demurrals are primarily constitutional and procedural. Most Democrats’ objections focus on the appropriate relationship between the White House and Congress in strategic decision-making.

Some protest that Mr Trump has exceeded his authority by, in effect, taking the US into a war with Iran without congressional approval. The constitution explicitly states that Congress exclusively has the power to declare war. But since the Second World War, this has been largely a theoretical prerogative, with the president, as commander-in-chief, in effect deciding where and when the US engages in armed conflict. That has been consistent among both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The constitutional argument in this case is particularly weak. The drone strike that killed Suleimani has not taken the US into a war with Iran by any meaningful definition of the term. Nor has it sentenced the country to inevitably slide into one.

Even by the most traditional and strict reading of Congress’ war powers, this kind of limited, quick-action and highly focused attack is actually a textbook example of why the framers of the constitution included an executive branch in the first place – and gave the president the powers of commander-in-chief of the military and control of most aspects of foreign policy.

The framers were anti-monarchical republicans rebelling against British, European and even classical Roman experiences of monarchy. Yet they concluded from their experiment with the early, decentralised and inadequate “Articles of Confederation” – the first written constitution of the US – that many essential actions of government were necessarily national and unsuited to the complex deliberations of any committee, whether small or large.

To deal with immediate contingencies, emergencies and decisions that perforce must be rapid, flexible and focused, even these anti-monarchists recognised that a powerful, centralised national executive was indispensable. That was particularly true in the case of day-to-day international relations and military matters, as well as unexpected contingencies such as natural disasters.

There is little doubt that Suleimani and Al Muhandis were plotting further attacks against American personnel and installations in Iraq. What, after all, was Suleimani doing there – and in the company of Al Muhandis?

Their focus was almost certainly planning the next stage in the “maximum resistance” campaign against the US and its allies in the region. It is implausible to think they were discussing anything else. Add to that, the insistence of US officials that there is meaningful intelligence that additional attacks were indeed being planned.

One must also factor in the great likelihood that elements of Iraqi intelligence were involved in gathering the information that led to the drone attack, and that they also could well have had knowledge of such plans.

Article II of the US constitution, which enumerates the powers of the presidency, anticipates precisely this kind of contingency. So even if this was a huge strategic error, it was well within presidential authority.

Mainstream Democratic Party leaders, including senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, have complained that they did not receive the traditional briefings in advance of the action, as familiar procedure would dictate. Mr Schumer complained that the “gang of eight” – the four senior-most members of the house of representatives and senate – did not receive such a briefing, as is customary.

That is unfortunate. But under the circumstances, including impeachment tensions between the White House and the Democratic majority in the house, it is hardly scandalous.

The real national anxiety is far more widespread and shared among Republicans and Democrats, left and right, and most serious observers: does Mr Trump really understand what he is getting the US into?

Responding to Iran’s escalating provocations was essential to defending American interests in the Middle East. Yet Tehran might remain convinced that Mr Trump does not have the stomach for a full-blown war, including major combat operations, with Iran.

He has called their bluff. But they can call his, too. There are real questions about whether he has a viable strategy, a serious vision for the long term, the political commitment and the personal qualities to lead a showdown with the so-called Islamic Republic.

His performance thus far as president overall is not reassuring – arguably except when it comes to Iran itself. Is Mr Trump capable of competently directing the US in such a considerable, protracted and complex struggle? Skepticism remains widespread.

War With Iran Is Not Inevitable

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-01-04/war-with-iran-is-not-inevitable?srnd=opinion

Tehran knows direct conflict would impose huge costs on the Islamic Republic.

Now that the U.S. has taken out Qassem Soleimani, arguably the most important military figure in the 40-year history of the Islamic Republic, conventional wisdom holds that Tehran must respond with extreme prejudice. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has promised “severe retaliation,” and his regime is putting out videos of thousands of Iranian mourners demanding vengeance.

What might that mean? Many commentators—and not only in Iran or the U.S—are suggesting that a new war in the Middle East is inevitable. Some liken Soleimani’s killing to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and on Twitter the hashtag #WWIII has been trending.

Not so fast. Iran may have many options for unleashing mayhem against American interests and allies in the Middle East, and plenty of allies and proxies through which to do so. But it also has a powerful reason to stop and reconsider. Beyond the expressions of outrage in Tehran—and alarm elsewhere—lies the cold reality that Iran cannot afford a war with a far more powerful opponent.

Any retaliation that leads to war will wreak enormous damage on the Islamic Republic. Even if costs more American blood and treasure than President Trump imagines, the toll on the Iranian nation will be many magnitudes greater. That is an outcome the regime in Tehran has consciously been trying to avoid.

The leaders of the Islamic Republic like to think of themselves as strategic thinkers, with a keen understanding of their opponents and a knack for anticipating their next moves. But they clearly misjudged Donald Trump. Convinced the American president would do anything to avoid a war, they have for months been provoking the U.S. with progressively more intense provocations.

Their goal all along has been to force the U.S. to ease the economic sanctions Trump imposed after he withdrew from the nuclear deal in May 2018. The regime Tehran initially tried to wait out the sanctions, but discovered they were more painful than expected.

A year later, by May 2019, they began a campaign of intimidation by attacking commercial shipping in international waters, but were careful not to actually sink ships or kill anybody.

Tehran was counting on provoking disproportionate U.S. response, short of actual war but enough to create a crisis and prompt international diplomatic intervention to get both sides to back down. In this scenario, Iran would be “persuaded” to stop its attacks, and the U.S. to ease the sanctions.

When the first round of provocations didn’t get a response, the Iranians shot down an American military drone. Trump called off a retaliatory strike at the last minute, but he announced a “red line”: the death of any American at Iranian hands would mandate a military response.

So, Iran raised the stakes by unleashing a major attack on Saudi oil installations. The U.S. moved troops to Saudi Arabia, but again did not respond kinetically.

At that point, Iran’s proxy militias in Iraq, especially Kata’ib Hezbollah, launched a series of rocket attacks against U.S.-related facilities in Iraq. This campaign culminated last week with an attack that killed an American contractor, several Iraqi police and soldiers, and wounded four American troops.

Throughout this calibrated testing of the limits of American patience, the regime in Tehran was certain that Trump didn’t want a war. When his red line was crossed, however, they discovered he wasn’t quite as conflict-adverse as they assumed.

First, U.S. strikes on Kata’ib Hezbollah bases killed at least 24 militia cadres. Then, after the group’s members violently besieged and damaged the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad, the Trump administration claims it picked up credible intelligence that Soleimani was plotting further attacks on American interests and personnel in Iraq.

Evidence for this has not been provided, but such behavior is consistent with Iran’s escalating provocations. Soleimani’s presence in Iraq, where he was traveling with Kata’ib Hezbollah leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis will have hardened suspicions. Both were killed in the U.S. drone attack, and several more pro-Iranian Iraqi militia leaders may have been killed in a subsequent strike last night.

What now? The Iranians can no longer be under any illusions about Trump’s appetite to answer provocations with disproportionate force. The killing of Soleimani was the most severe attack on the Iranian political apparatus the U.S. could have inflicted outside of Iran. Khamenei must know now “severe retaliation” by Iran could be met with an even more devastating American response. He might still calculate that Trump doesn’t want all-out war, but that gamble is much riskier than it was last week, last month, or last year.

The smarter option for Iran would be to take Secretary of State Mike Pompeo seriously when he says the U.S. is now looking for de-escalation, and restrict their retaliations to thundering threats. The regime might, instead, harvest some international sympathy, however undeserving, for Soleimani’s killing. And the outpouring of national grief could distract Iranians from the recent slaughter of hundreds of their countrymen, ordered by Khamenei and executed by Soleimani and other commanders.

If the regime is driven by ideology and emotions, it will live up to Khamenei’s word and retaliate harshly—at great cost to Iran and the whole region. But if it is rational, as it tends to be in a crisis, it will take the opportunity for a long pause in the pattern of escalation with the U.S., and find a new strategy that does not drag everyone towards a devastating conflict.

Suleimani’s Death Draws the Gulf Region Closer to a Conflict No One Wants

https://agsiw.org/suleimanis-death-draws-the-gulf-region-closer-to-a-conflict-no-one-wants/

Suleimani’s Death Draws the Gulf Region Closer to a Conflict No One Wants
Following a U.S. drone strike that killed Iran’s Quds Force chief, Gulf Arab states can help calm tensions.

Gulf Arab countries face an extraordinary and unexpected set of challenges and, potentially, opportunities in the wake of the January 3 U.S. drone strike that killed Iran’s key regional military commander and one of its most important Iraqi allies. As is usually the case with major regional developments, opinion is divided among the Gulf Arab states. But they are bracing for the next moves by the United States and, especially, Iran. Tehran’s regional adversaries, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, will be torn between the potential opportunities created by the demise of a long-standing and successful opponent on the one hand and the prospect of Iranian retaliation directed against them on the other. Other Gulf countries, particularly Oman but also Kuwait and Qatar, will see even more danger in a potential regional conflagration, but also could find a diplomatic opportunity to play a mediating or message-transmitting role if the parties wisely choose the path of de-escalation.

What happens next is by no means certain. Iranian leaders have vowed revenge and a decisive response to the loss of Major General Qassim Suleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, the expeditionary wing of Iran’s armed forces and its ideological vanguard in the region. He was, arguably, the most experienced, effective, and significant military figure in the history of the Islamic Republic and the key architect of Iran’s post-2003 hegemonic expansion into Iraq and Syria. In addition, the Iranian regime lost Abu Mahdi al-Mohandis, a major and long-standing Iraqi sectarian Shia ally, head of the Kataib Hezbollah militia that has been in a deadly confrontation with Americans in Iraq. So, the pressure on the regime to take revenge will be strong.

Iran will also feel pressed to try to restore the deterrence that has heretofore mitigated the U.S. response to its increasingly intensified provocations during the past year. After a devastating and humiliating loss of this kind, the imperative to demonstrate power and initiative is inevitably compelling. However, Iran has every reason to pause to carefully consider its response, and might even explore the potential for de-escalation, especially if Washington seriously pursues that path.

After initially seeking to wait out the “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign the administration of President Donald J. Trump launched following Washington’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement, by May 2019 Tehran decided to pursue a strategy of strategic recklessness. The “maximum resistance” campaign – which included attacks on international shipping, the downing of a U.S. military drone, and a stunning attack on Saudi Aramco oil installations – was plainly designed to create an atmosphere of crisis that would compel the international community to intervene diplomatically to ease such attacks and the sanctions strangling the Iranian economy. By carefully intensifying these highly calibrated, and often deniable, attacks, Iran apparently sought to provoke the United States into a disproportionate response that would prompt international diplomatic intervention.

That did not happen. Trump even called off retaliatory strikes after the drone was shot down and instead called for negotiations with Iran. But Trump and his senior officials repeatedly articulated a “red line” that would ensure a U.S. military response: any American casualties at Iran’s hands.

When the attack on the Saudi oil facilities failed to produce the crisis Tehran has been seeking, Iran’s proxy militias in Iraq, especially Kataib Hezbollah, began a series of rocket attacks at the rate of almost once a week beginning on October 28, 2019. The red line was finally crossed on December 27, with the killing of a U.S. contractor and the wounding of several U.S. military personnel, although Kataib Hezbollah is believed responsible rather than Iran itself. The Trump administration responded militarily, but in effect maintained the fiction that Kataib Hezbollah would have acted independently from Iran by attacking the group’s headquarters in the Iraqi city of Qaim and other targets on December 29, killing at least 24 militia members. The U.S. Embassy compound and the Green Zone in Baghdad were then violently besieged and badly damaged by Kataib Hezbollah members on December 31. The incident finally ended, apparently without loss of life. But the attack on the embassy and, the U.S. government claims, plans by Kataib Hezbollah and other Suleimani-directed groups to further attack U.S. targets in Iraq appear to have directly prompted the January 3 drone strike.

In short, what since May 2019 has been a basically one-sided campaign of largely low-intensity and indirect provocations suddenly and dramatically became mutual when Suleimani’s Kataib Hezbollah operatives crossed Trump’s red line on American casualties. The logic of low intensity war and tit-for-tat provocations would dictate a significant Iranian retaliation next, whether directly or by proxy, against U.S. or U.S.-related interests. However, for the first time since May, by attacking Kataib Hezbollah and killing Suleimani and Mohandis, Washington has significantly altered the calculus for Iran by substantially retaliating and, therefore, reintroducing meaningful deterrence. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has gone out of his way to call for de-escalation, as has most of the international community. The rational Iranian evaluation of the situation should lead the regime to seriously consider this option, despite anger and the desire to re-establish its own deterrent to U.S. attacks.

Even if Tehran has already decided to retaliate, how, where, and when it does so will help to determine the U.S. response and therefore the impact of Iran’s next move. Tehran has many options and many surrogates around the region and the world. But it is now on notice that responses can and may well be harsh. Therefore, the Iranian regime must also carefully consider the possibility that additional escalation could lead Tehran into a devastating conflict with a far more powerful enemy. Washington, too, has nothing to gain from further escalation or additional confrontations. Neither do the Gulf Arab countries, which face the prospect of being caught in the crossfire, as Saudi Arabia has already discovered.

Therefore, the potential exists for subtle de-escalation, even if underneath a veneer of angry rhetoric, threats, and even symbolic, but practically minor, retaliatory acts. Iran’s logic in seeking to create and exploit a crisis through gradually intensifying provocations has been evident since May. But since Washington has now called Tehran’s bluff and seriously raised the prospect of an eventual conflict if mutual provocations persist and, especially, intensify, Iran will have to reconsider its strategic choices very carefully.

Close U.S. allies in the confrontation with Iran such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE can help by encouraging Washington to make it clear to Tehran that the offer of de-escalation is serious and meaningful. Gulf countries such as Oman and Kuwait are potentially well positioned to pass messages between Washington and Tehran and even, potentially, serve as mediators. Despite angry rhetoric and heated passions, quiet de-escalation based on a mutual understanding that intensification of the confrontation is in nobody’s interest should be not only desirable but achievable.