Killing of Iranian general increases U.S. divisions

The news of the attack on the American Embassy in Iraq has created a windstorm of concern and panic for the United States, and also for Americans, then the sudden news of the retaliatory killing of Iranian General Sulemani ordered by President Trump, which resulted in more than furrowed brows as the country braced itself for Iranian retaliation for the killing of their key official that some have likened to an assassination of the head of the CIA.

The gravity of the situation is exacerbated by what many fear is a bumbling attempt by the president, unschooled in foreign policy, and from a White House where most often cooler heads have not prevailed.

A closer examination by the U.S. dailies has revealed a cumbersome initial retaliation from the White House, for the December death of an American contractor, one that hit two countries with 24 reported casualties, and an undeclared amount of collateral damage.

The U.S. Army, under Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, misunderstanding the situation on the ground, gave weight to the law of unintended consequences, about Iraqi opposition towards the Iranian coalition with scant knowledge of the Iraqi and Iranian partnership, which the Iraqi citizens objected to, and was hostile to; but, after the retaliation, for the contractor's death, that many saw as overplay, that anger was transferred to America, that peaked with the embassy attack, which from many accounts seemed to be tacitly permitted by local Iraqi officials, and which evaporated shortly afterwards.

In short, the American government, over several decades, has often gravely misunderstood the Middle East, and its group identity, and that they, in effect, have their own implicit understanding, that says when one country is attacked, the others also not only feel the tremors, but, by proxy, retaliation.

As The Guardian reported, “The killing will be viewed by many inside Iran, and among its Shia regional allies, as an act of war, and Suleimani as a martyr whose violent death must be avenged in kind. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and Mohammad Javad Zarif, its foreign minister, have already indicated as much. They will use the assassination to rally wavering support for the regime.”

At the beginning of his administration, Trump’s critics felt that if an international crisis were to appear, he would bungle it, and now having seen a number of his ham-fisted actions with other countries, (plus name calling), of leaders from China to North Korea, and closer to home, Canada, those critics are justifiably worried.

The presidential penchant for bellicose rhetoric, via Twitter, will not do him, or the United States, any good, and his threat to bomb Iranian cultural sites, was another unwise statement.

Whether or not Esper's announcement, on Tuesday, that this would not occur, as  a violation of the laws of war, (in response to a reporter’s question), or a rescindment by Trump alone, remains unclear; but, yet again, this is symptomatic of the reckless statements from the president.

Secretary Esper

Of equal concern is the attitude of our allies, who are poised to receive just as much blowback in the form of an attack on their military sites.

As a coda to this concern is the statement from our oldest ally, England while noting that he [Sulemani] was a precarious and dangerous person, orchestrating violence, in the region, but also calling for a "de-escalation from all sides".

Characteristically, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was not told of the attack; and in a report by BBC News, it was reported that “Tory MP Tom Tugendhat said there was a "pattern" from the current White House not to share details with its allies, which was a "matter of concern".

The former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee added: "I have long believed the purpose of having allies is so we can surprise our enemies, not each other.”

Of equal concern were statements from “Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn [who] said earlier that the "US assassination" was an "extremely serious and dangerous escalation".

“Mr Corbyn said the UK "should urge restraint" from both Iran and the US - and called for the government to "stand up to the belligerent actions and rhetoric coming from the United States".

He added: "All countries in the region and beyond should seek to ratchet down the tensions to avoid deepening conflict, which can only bring further misery to the region, 17 years on from the disastrous invasion of Iraq."

“The acting leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey, said Iran was governed by "a brutal regime", but accused President Trump of "yet again radically and recklessly escalated tensions in an area where peace-keeping was already on a knife edge".

Closer to home, Congressional Democrats, it was learned, were also not told of the plan to kill Soleimani, causing even an even deeper partisan divide, against the background of the impeachment.

“I haven't seen intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting that was going on or decrease other risk to the United States,” said Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Of course, the Iran response is of great concern, there are a number of choices retaliation can take: assassination of a U.S. official or one of its allies, or a cyber-attack on the banking system of one, or both.

“Iran has an alternative range of political tools that could be deployed against its arch-foe. It is likely it will try to channel Iraqi anger over the use of its territory for the assassination of Suleimani and leading Iraqi militiamen into a concerted bid to push US forces, diplomats and contractors out of Iraq altogether. Recent Iraqi street protests against Iran’s overweening influence may now be eclipsed by a bigger struggle against the US and its much-resented importunities,” added The Guardian.

On Main Street tongues are wagging that this is a ruse by Trump to deflect from his impeachment and pending trial in the Senate, but some feel that may well reflect the law of unintended consequences than reality.

Also, in that vein, on the opposite side of the political aisle, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, that for Democratic candidates, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, the conflict gives them an opportunity to increase their polling, especially for the former who has extensive foreign policy experience as Vice-President in the Obama administration, and for the latter his anti-war stance, and his vote against the war on Iraq.

Their divergence can help cast them as stalwarts in a campaign that has not always discussed foreign policy in depth. But, it can also backfire for those voters that want a less dovish approach from Sanders.

“A CNN poll from late November found that 48 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters thought Mr. Biden was best equipped to handle foreign policy; Mr. Sanders was a distant second at 14 percent.

Mr. Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he represented Delaware, is perhaps at his most fluent and comfortable when discussing international affairs, and he has made that issue a centerpiece of his message in a race that has been largely limited to domestic debates,” said the Times.

In an ever evolving story, National Public Radio, on Monday reported that, “In a letter to House Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called last week's drone airstrike against Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani "provocative and disproportionate," saying the strike "endangered our servicemembers, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran."

“Pelosi said the House will vote later this week on a resolution under the War Powers Act to prevent Trump from acting against Iran after 30 days unless Congress votes to authorize further military operations.”