A new fire in the old Gulf

As soon as Trump announced his frustration with “unending wars” and decided to leave Afghanistan it opened the gates to other possibilities. One of which was to make him realise the futility of staying in Iraq. Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani and Iraq’s Mahdi al Muhandis were on just such a mission. Iraq’s parliament hurried into that decision in the backdrop of the killings of the two by the US. It may have had to do with the anger at such blatant disregard of international norms and a crime committed in the heart of Iraq but was as much a conclusion of what was being gradually worked towards by Iran, Iraq and their two principals. Call it the great game with death and destruction as its tools.

So, the region is into newer dynamics. What was being played out under the radar is now out in the open and Iran and the US are threatening to obliterate the other. It doesn’t take away from the overwhelming emotion and affection for Soleimani shown on Iran’s streets or his remarkable feats but does tell you that the morass is deep and old. Iraq hasn’t recovered from the wars since 1980 and is now a shambles. As are Syria and Yemen. The two sides to the conflict in most of these cases are the same with others added for flavour.

Soleimani became an overnight hero in how he cleared Daesh from Iraq and then stood his ground with help from Iraqi militias to disable their return, till Daesh was destroyed or displaced from Syria too. So a number of people in the Middle East owe him a special thanks. If that has also pushed Daesh to Afghanistan, it may remain the deadliest fall-out of the Iraq and Syria wars. If Iran has its sights on Israel as its ultimate nemesis, Soleimani emerged a hero there too when he bolstered Lebanon’s Hezbollah in its face-off leaving Israel with a lot to contemplate. Iran came out on top in both places but it spread Soleimani too thin for his own comfort. He and Iran thus both came to grief.

We are told Trump was angered enough after the attack on the US Embassy in Iraq to choose from the list of reprisals Soleimani’s elimination. It surprised many in the decision chain. But that is what he ordered and with sufficient tag on where the general was he was taken out. Hard words but factual in the way the heartless system of force application in the US works. Now whether Trump has the US and the region exposed to another unnecessary and “unending war” is to be seen. It depends more on how Iran responds and in what proportion for Trump to digest what Iran offers. Sad facts, but the fate of the entire Middle East and West Asia is now on the line.

Trump may have chosen this route for other reasons. In an election year he found himself in the wrong spotlight. The Democrats are after his blood and have a credible case to impeach him. Even if he were to be rescued from that end by a partisan Senate there is enough muck to defile him as elections close in. This just might be his trick to shift the spotlight. Second, he has a precedent to note. Obama’s decision to eliminate OBL may have established his war credentials after the Republicans tagged him a wimp, possibly winning him a second term. If this is Obama redux it explains why Trump went for the riskiest option.

The US may also have been encouraged by its success against al Baghdadi but this would test the rational beyond reasonable limit. The consequences in this case are laden and horrendous. One other factor, not impossible to envisage, is that having tried to set the region alight by urging Saudi Arabia to take Iran on directly, and failed, the US decided to do it themselves. If killing Soleimani is the grenade in the tinderbox the sparks will fly wide even as the US conveniently withdraws within its shores from another “unnecessary war”. The region will be left to pick the pieces if anything survives.

On to Iran. How rational is Iran? Forget the current emotion on the street. It will respond, no doubt on that. But at what level and how proportionately for the US to digest? After all, both want to sway away from war. Iran has successfully avoided an inter-state conflict when it’s seen to geo-strategically gain through wars-by-proxy at the sub-national level. It will not give up on those gains driven by sentiment. Nor, test the fragility of the existing system weakened with sanctions and a poor economy largely based on oil. It will choose its theatre of response and intensity wisely, primarily driven by the sense to keep war out of Iran. These are encouraging readings. The morning after the morning after is far more clear-eyed.

Some other signs include the Saudi reach-out to Iraq condemning the attack and showing its support for Iraq. The UAE mostly will follow suit and together the two are likely to keep out of a full-scale war. That will greatly help lighten the fear of an impending war; a plank Pakistan must work on to avoid an expanded conflict. The 1980 Iran-Iraq War was unable to widen beyond the two belligerents. In the two Iraq wars thereafter Pakistan kept itself out of the actual conflict with some deft diplomacy and clear policy.

If a full-scale war breaks out in Iran it will consume Pakistan far more than the Afghan War which despite its lower scale engaged Pakistan wholesomely. Pakistan did well in mitigating its adversity, containing its fallout. With Iran though both the intensity and scale will be far bigger. Hence the danger. Early signs since the killing of the Iranian general make a more rational reading of what might ensue in the Iranian reprisal. A rocket attack on Iraqi bases where US forces are placed was an expected response. Whatever else Iran might throw at the US is likely to be indirect and hence digestible. That mitigates the chance of an all-out war. The region may have just escaped a far graver consequence of a serious Trump miscalculation.

Pakistan needs to engage with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others in the region to keep them aware of what a lingering war will ultimately leave behind — ashes. They will thus do themselves a favour by keeping out of this one. If the US wants to impose one it shall have to do it alone within a contained region. Though both China and Russia will handily keep the US out of excessive adventurism. We need to know what is rational and in our best interest, and keep to it.

Those hyping for a third World War or a wider regional conflict or egging for fireworks need to cool it. Rationality will prevail. This storm will pass and Trump will go back to his politicking. Thankfully.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 9^th, 2020.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.