By Denis Korkodinov
At the height of the US-Iranian crisis caused by Tehran’s attack on Al Ain military base, Donald Trump announced that every American seeks to unleash a war with the Ayatollah regime. This was caused, among other things, by the desire of the US president to receive “bonuses” in his election campaign. The so-called patriotic upsurge in American society and the fear of the United States in the international arena are likely to lead to the re-election of Donald Trump.
It is worth noting that back in 2016, the current head of the White House positioned himself as a supporter of the US withdrawal from all military conflicts. At a certain stage, such a position was beneficial because ordinary Americans were tired of the seemingly endless US military campaign in Afghanistan and Syria.
In this regard, the task of Donald Trump was to create the image of a peacemaker who would not take part in military adventures, but would focus exclusively on solving internal problems. However, this did not happen. In this regard, if by 2016 American voters, as a rule, were tired of wars, then by 2020 they began to be tired of the policies of Donald Trump. And the US-Iran conflict allowed, in this case, to distract American society from internal political differences and create an impetus for the growth of patriotic sentiments.
When Donald Trump officially announced his decision to withdraw US troops from Syria on February 25, 2019, the international community concluded that a new era of “distance from conflict” had begun in Washington’s politics. This has caused some positive sentiment in the Middle East.
In addition, subsequent statements by the head of the White House about the economic inexpediency of Washington’s acquisition of oil in the Middle East region and the protection of the Strait of Hormuz confirmed the optimism of the international community, whose representatives really believed that the United States was “leaving” the region.
The consequences of this policy manifested itself very quickly, near the port of Fujairah in the Gulf of Oman on May 12, 2019, when an attack on oil tankers was carried out. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia accused unknown force groups of sabotage. The US reaction to the incident was extremely restrained and was expressed only in a request to be careful, delivering goods by sea through the Gulf of Oman. Subsequently, a second attack was made on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington blamed the incident on Iran.
As evidence, the Pentagon released a video on June 14, 2019, which showed how, a few minutes before the tragedy, a military boat armed with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps approached the oil tankers.
The culmination of the conflict was the attack on the Saudi Aramco oil facilities on September 14, 2019. The consequences of this attack received global resonance, as they caused sharp fluctuations in world oil prices. Under such conditions, Donald Trump, whom international partners and ordinary voters could accuse of inaction, dramatically changed his strategy of “distance from conflicts” and re-activated US participation in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, Iran clearly did not expect the next phase of Washington’s Middle East campaign to begin with the assassination of the commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Kassem Soleimani. Tehran hoped that in the most extreme case, the United States would be able to launch a missile and bomb strike on strategic Iranian targets. However, the assassination of a senior general with global influence was an unforeseen event for which Iran was not ready.
Baghdad Airport is a very attractive destination for the United States. And the ayatollah regime was fully aware that if the conflict escalated, Washington could strike at this facility. Therefore, when the American press published a brief note in the early morning of January 3 that the United States carried out an attack on Baghdad’s airport, in the beginning they reacted very restrained in Iran, believing that Kassem Soleimani was safe.
A violent reaction from Tehran arose when the first shots of the killed Iranian military leader appeared in the press, loyal to the administration of the White House.
The incident significantly increased the stakes of the American leader. He managed to challenge not only Iran, but the entire international community, saying: “Look! I acted like no one expected! I killed Kassem Soleimani, whom I considered a terrorist! I will kill any general of any country if I consider him a threat to the United States ! ”
In this regard, the international community has shown particular concern. The President of Iraq, despite the decision made by the country’s parliament to withdraw US troops, said he did not consider the US an enemy. Iran, as a result of a new wave of protest movement, was on the verge of overthrowing the Ayatollah regime. Russia and China also felt their own vulnerability.
The reason for this is that shortly before the assassination of Kassem Soleimani, Tehran, Moscow and Beijing conducted joint naval exercises aimed at creating in the foreseeable future a powerful defensive alliance intended primarily to protect the Strait of Hormuz.
However, the assassination of a senior Iranian general was seen as a kind of signal that creating a competition with US is extremely dangerous, which would cast doubt to the access of Beijing and Moscow in the Middle East.
The strategic mistake of Iran and the entire international community is an inattentive attitude to the history of American pressure on the countries of the Middle East. If this mistake had not been made, the assassination of Kassem Soleimani as a signal of the need for Iran to leave Iraq could have been foreseen. The US has already used this technique when Rafik Hariri was killed in order to expel Syria from Lebanon. Now the question is who will be the next victim.
(The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights)
Image Credit: AP