Tag: United States
Iran is winning this round
The big news of the day is that Tehran will maintain its commitment to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections even though it will no longer be bound by the operational limits in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA or Iran nuclear deal). Why would it do that?
Because it is smart. There are several benefits:
- It will give the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese reason not to withdraw from the nuclear deal, thus keeping them split from the Americans;
- It will make it clear to the international community how far they are willing to go in preparing the materials needed for nuclear weapons, and at what point they are prepared to stop if given some sanctions relief;
- It will give them the moral high ground while possibly continuing clandestine nuclear weapons design, much of which can be done by computers without nuclear materials.
Washington meanwhile is losing on several fronts. It has had to suspend anti-ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria, its claims of an imminent attack on US targets are less than credible, there are credible claims that Soleimani was carrying in Baghdad a peace overture to Saudi Arabia, and pressure to remove US forces from Iraq, or at least from Arab-controlled Iraq, is growing. The assassination of Soleimani has tamped down the anti-Iranian demonstrations in Iraq and has quieted the demonstrations against the Islamic Republic inside Iran as well. Even Riyadh is asking Washington to tone it down.
The Republican wizkids like Senator Rubio are speculating about US support for Kurdistan’s secession from Iraq, so that the American troops could stay there. But he forgets: Kurdistan has lost control of Kirkuk, without which its oil revenue is nowhere near sufficient to maintain it as an independent state, not to mention Turkey’s, Syria’s, and Iran’s reactions as well as China’s and Russia’s. Does Marco want the US to go to war to restore Kirkuk to Kurdistan’s control?
Donald Trump likes to upset the apple cart and create crisis, then pretend to resolve it, as he has done with the trade wars. This one won’t be an easy pretense. He has made Americans far less safe not only from Iranian attacks but also from ISIS and Al Qaeda, which are no doubt enjoying the relief. The only Iranians endangered so far other than Soleimani are Iranian-Americans, who are reportedly being stopped at our borders in droves and sent to secondary interrogation. I’ve been there and done that–it is not fatal–but it helps our enemies to claim that America only believes in equal rights for non-immigrant white people, which is pretty much the case for this Administration.
Hillary Clinton was correct when she said Donald Trump did not have the temperament to be president. Republicans in the Senate know that as well as anyone else. There is a good chance killing Soleimani will hurt Trump’s chances for re-election as well as Republican hopes of maintaining their majority in the Senate. It is high time they step up and provide the conditions for a serious and fair trial on the impeachment charges. John Bolton’s new-found willingness to testify if subpoened provides a golden opportunity. It would be truly ironic if Bolton and the Iranians were to be the causes of Trump’s undoing.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 4 and 5
January 5
– Iran says it has 35 targets within range for possible retaliation, prompting President Trump to say the US has 52 targets. Who will blink first?
– NYT now confirms what LA Times reported yesterday, that Trump’s choice of assassination option greatly surprised his advisers. NYT says Trump wanted to hit Suleimani after contractor was killed in Kirkuk but deferred until evidence of imminent attack could be found. Some sources call evidence “razor thin.”
– WH sent war powers notification to Congress, but kept whole text classified.
– Former adviser Emma Sky says US strike hurts US-Iraq relationship.
– NYT says killing also strengthens ISIS.
-Good article in Atlantic on likely Iranian actions. Note links to CRS report saying most Iranian actions against US since 1979 have been by proxies and IISS analysis of Iranian strategy and a global military power site.
– On the political front, Atlantic has good piece arguing that Trump has done well with congressional Republicans by charming personal contact, an unreported practice. And it’s true that Obama did little in that regard with Rs or Ds.
January 4
Jonathan Swan of Axios has reported that the three more persuasive
arguments to use with President Trump are: 1. It’s the biggest ever. 2.
It’s never been done before. 3. Obama did the opposite. The Suleimani
assassination ticks all three.
– WaPo describes the weekend meetings in Florida when Trump demands prompt action.
-LA Times says Trump’s advisers were surprised by his support for the assassination option.
– NYT emphasizes the final authorization, when the operation might have been called off if Iraqi officials were part of the convoy.
– An earlier NYT story discusses refusals by G.W. Bush and Obama to kill Suleimani because of the likely consequences.
– WaPo foresees a cyber attack as the most likely Iranian response. DHS says it’s ready.
– Iraq is likely to demand withdrawal of US forces.
– WaPo notes earlier polling on US public opinion on a conflict with Iran.
– Lawfare writers say the situation is very complex under both domestic and international law.
– VP Pence misleadingly tweeted that Suleimani “assisted” the 9/11 hijackers.
– My take: the action was probably legal — and probably unwise.
And in political analysis, Lee Drutman argues that the Framers worried about precisely the political polarization we now have. Is proportional representation the best answer?
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, January 3
Columbia Journalism Review has a good collection of commentary on the US assassination of General Suleimani,which I’ll paste below.
Two other points: It’s fortunate that the US military blocked VIP travel to Iraq and Syria starting Dec 16 and supposedly lasting until Jan 15. I’ll be surprised if they allow it any time soon.
Even Turkey delayed sending its troops to Libya until the parliament had authorized it.
In addition to the items linked to below, see this by Heather Hurlburt and this by Dan Byman.
The killing of Qassem Suleimani and the road to war with Iran
By Jon Allsop
In the early hours of the morning, local time, state media in Iraq reported that Qassem Suleimani, Iran’s top security and intelligence official, had been killed in a drone strike at Baghdad’s international airport, along with figures tied to Iran-backed Iraqi militias. In the United States, where it was Thursday night, the news quickly spread, albeit with key details missing; cable news shows and one broadcast network, CBS, cut into their programming with portentous reports that something serious had happened. An hour or so later, the US government confirmed that its military had killed Suleimani at the direction of the president. Trump remained strangely quiet, though he did tweet a picture of an American flag. In response, Iranian officials tweeted their country’s flag, and threats of revenge. Such is the road to war in 2020.
Some context: Suleimani was greatly influential in Iran and widely revered by his countrymen. As head of the Quds Force, an elite unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, he was responsible for Iran’s prodigious maneuvering throughout the Middle East. According to a former operative of the Central Intelligence Agency who spoke to Dexter Filkins in 2013 for The New Yorker, “Suleimani is the single most powerful operative in the Middle East.” In recent years, Suleimani was influential in buttressing the regime of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator, and other efforts that cost lives—including those of US troops—in countries from Iraq to Lebanon. According to the New York Times, Trump’s plan to kill Suleimani was initiated last week, after the administration accused an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia of killing an American contractor in an attack on an Iraqi military base. The militia denied involvement; the US bombed some of the militia’s bases anyway. Afterward, when militia members sieged the US embassy in Baghdad (staffers were trapped inside; none were hurt), American officials blamed Suleimani for being the instigator.
Presidents Obama and Bush never took shots to kill Suleimani, fearing war with Iran. Trump went ahead and did it. Does that mean we’re now at war with Iran? Experts’ initial reactions, it seems, have fallen on a spectrum—from let’s keep things in perspective to war is now inevitable to we’re already there. (In The Atlantic, Andrew Exum, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East policy under Obama, wrote that the killing of Suleimani “doesn’t mean war, it will not lead to war, and it doesn’t risk war. None of that. It is war.”) Two points of consensus emerged: that we are in uncharted territory and that whatever happens next will not be good. “No ‘hot take’ makes any sense now,” Rasha Al Aqeedi of Irfaa Sawtak, a site associated with the US-funded Middle East Broadcasting Networks, wrote. “None of us who work on Iraq closely ever anticipated a scenario without him.”
Nevertheless, hot takes abounded—on Twitter, where everybody suddenly seemed to be an expert on Iran, and in the news. (In particular, a CNBC piece—“America just took out the world’s no. 1 bad guy”—took a lot of heatonline.) Cable shows invited guests with close ties to the military-industrial complex: Fox News hosted Bush stalwarts Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer; MSNBC interviewed Brett McGurk, a diplomat involved in Iraq policy during the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations; CNN had on Max Boot, a Washington Post columnist who was a vocal proponent of the Iraq war. For many progressive commentators, it was all a bit too 2003 for comfort. “Cable news is hard-wired to support war,” Carlos Maza, formerly of Vox, tweeted. “It relies heavily on ex-military, ex-national security people for commentary, and routinely marginalizes anti-war voices.”
Much has changed since the early 2000s, including Boot’s perspective. He has recanted his support for the Iraq war and warned that war with Iran would be worse. Still, as I wrote last year amid escalating tensions between the US and Iran, much mainstream coverage of the countries’ relationship has been too quick to paint Iran as the menacing, unilateral aggressor, and has parroted US government talking points without applying due skepticism.
Last night, as reporters scrambled to fill in the details of Suleimani’s killing, news outlets turned repeatedly to press releases, including the Pentagon’s assurance that the strike on Suleimani “was aimed at deterring future attack plans.” As the Post’s Josh Rogin tweeted, “By the Pentagon’s own logic, if Iran retaliates, the strike mission failed its key goal. Remember that.” That’s sound advice. Already, Iran is promising “harsh retaliation.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
New year, old problems
– US sending nearly 5K more troops to Middle East.
– David Sanger assesses Trump’s problems with Iran and North Korea.
–Kim warns of new tests.
– Marc Lynch foresees more problems in Middle East.
– Cyber developments affecting the battlefield.
-Congress wants more civilian power in Pentagon.
– Bruce Jentleson wants more attention to history in US foreign policy.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. If you want to get it directly, To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Worse than Benghazi
President Trump was at pains yesterday to say that what is happening at the embassy in Baghdad is “no Benghazi.” He’s right: it is worse.
Not until now in terms of lives lost. The Baghdad embassy staff is said to be barricaded in a safe place, which of course means they are safe only if the demonstrators are kept out. Ambassador Chris Stevens died in a “safe” haven in Benghazi. I hope and pray nothing of that sort will happen in Baghdad.
But the broader political picture in Baghdad is much worse than it was in Benghazi, where the group that conducted the attack was a ragtag gang of extremists unsupported by the broader population. In Baghdad, the attackers belong to a government-allied (though not necessarily controlled) militia with a lot of support among Iraq’s majority Shia population and wholehearted Iranian backing.
The Americans withdrew from Libya quickly after the Benghazi attack, because American interests there were minimal. The Embassy is still not back in Tripoli. Iraq is far more important: it is a major oil producer and a front-line state vis-a-vis Iran. Thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars have been spent to ensure a friendly and semi-democratic government as well as to secure a competitive foothold in Iraq, where 5000 or so US troops are still training Iraqi security forces. US withdrawal from Iraq would constitute a major Iranian victory, allowing Tehran to consolidate its access to Syria and Lebanon as well as the Mediterranean.
Withdrawal is therefore still unlikely, but the Baghdad Embassy will not be able to function as before. It was always a ludicrous behemoth, an immense fortress with 20-foot high walls in the center of the most valued neighborhood in the city. Its heavily watered and manicured lawns represented American arrogance at its most obvious: an attempt to install in Baghdad an isolated suburban-style campus protected from the local population. It was an obvious target: symbolic and indefensible unless the Iraqis defended it, as the Vienna conventions require.
It would be hard for any Iraqi government to exert the effort required after an American attack that killed, in retaliation for the death of one American contractor, a couple of dozen Iraqis belonging to one of the militias credited–rightly or not–with defeating the Islamic State and preventing a Shia holocaust. President Trump has vaunted his commitment to disproportionate retaliation, but he forgets it’s a game the Iranians can play as well. The attack on the embassy is their version of escalation. The additional US troops being sent may be able to prevent any deaths or capture of Americans, but they won’t be able to restore the Embassy to normal functionality. Evacuation of most the civilians is likely.
Nor will the US troops be able to prevent the Iraqi politicians who want complete American troop withdrawal from gaining traction. Until the American attack on the Iraqi militiamen, Iraqis were loudly protesting the Iranian presence in the country. That tide has now gone out. Iraq is in the midst of a government crisis: the prime minister has resigned and will remain only until a new one gets a majority in parliament. The US attack and Iranian response make it likely the next one will not be nearly as friendly to the US as the incumbent, Adel Abdul Mehdi. Even if nothing more happens at the Embassy, Tehran has won the current exchange of fire.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The end is nigh 2019
Except for my 401k, the teens have not been a great decade. We’ve watched the Arab spring turn into the Arab civil wars, Russia reassert itself annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine, China increase its overt and covert challenges to the US, and North Korea defy American efforts to limit or eliminate its nuclear and missile programs. The US has initiated trade wars, withdrawn from international commitments (including the Paris climate change accord as well as the Iran nuclear deal and the intermediate nuclear forces agreement), and abandoned its support for democracy and rule of law, not only but importantly in Israel and Palestine.
Several of these developments could worsen in 2020. The Iran/US tit-for-tat is more likely to escalate than de-escalate. Some Arab civil wars like Yemen and Syria are burning out, but others are spreading beyond the Arab world, with Turkey intervening in Syria and Libya, Russia and Egypt in Libya, and Iran in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Russia is not advancing in Ukraine, but it seems disinclined to withdraw via the Minsk II agreement that would re-establish Ukraine’s control over its southeastern border with Russia and allow a significant degree of autonomy for Luhansk and Donetsk. China and the US have reached a limited and partial agreement on trade, but no more comprehensive accord is in sight. North Korea is bound to test more missiles, if not nuclear weapons.
US mistakes are especially concerning. The withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal has freed Iran to begin to violate its provisions, accelerating the date at which Tehran will have all the technology it needs to make nuclear weapons. Global warming is accelerating and the arms race with Russia is quickening. NATO is not brain dead, but US leadership of the alliance is more in doubt than ever before due to the President’s inability to recognize the real advantages a multilateral partnership gives to American power projection. American abandonment of even the pretense of evenhandedness in Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians has opened the door to extremist Jewish ambitions to annex the West Bank.
Only 11 months remain before the next US presidential election. It will focus mainly on domestic issues like the economy, health care, religion, and race. But there can be no doubt the United States is less well positioned internationally than it was in January 2017, when President Trump took office. The rest of the world increasingly regards the U.S. as a menace to peace and security, not its guarantor. Excessive reliance on military force and erratic decisionmaking have reduced American influence. Even the relatively strong economy, which has continued to grow at the pace established in the Obama administration and thereby reduced unemployment to historic lows, has not propped up American prestige, because of Trump’s trade wars. Enthusiasm for America is at a nadir in most of the world.
We can hope for better and toast the prospects this evening. But there is little reason to believe the United States is going to recover until it gets new leadership, not only in the White House but also in the Senate, where the new year will see some semblance of a “trial” of President Trump on self-evident impeachment charges. He tried to extort Ukraine into investigating a political rival for his personal benefit using US government resources and has withheld cooperation with the resulting investigation. But few if any Republican Senators seem ready to acknowledge the facts. I might hope Chief Justice Roberts will refuse to preside over a sham procedure and insist on testimony, but he has given no hint of that yet.
America is a great country. It has survived many mistakes. But whether it can get through the next year without doing itself irreversible harm is in doubt. It could “acquit” and re-elect a president most of the world regards as more of a threat to peace and security than Vladimir Putin. Or it could, against the odds, redeem itself and its role in the world with a conviction, a good election free of international interference, and inauguration of someone the world and most its citizens can respect. Take your choice, America.
And happy New Year!
RSS - Posts
