Sunday, January 5, 2020

In their Ongoing Fight Against Imperialism Progressive Iraquis Want Both the United States and Iran To Leave their Country

https://truthout.org/…/iraqs-vote-to-kick-out-u-s-troops-re…

Op-Ed
War & Peace


Iraq’s Vote to Kick Out U.S. Troops Reflects Growing Anti-Imperialist Movement
by Raed Jarrar
January 5, 2020
Truthout


Iraqi protesters in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah clash with supporters of Iraq's pro-Iranian paramilitary group Hashed Al-Shaabi on January 5, 2020, denouncing both the U.S. and Iran as "occupiers" while demanding reforms within their own government.AFP via Getty Images


This morning, the Iraqi Parliament said it loudly and clearly: “The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.” Yes, all foreign forces, including the U.S. and Iran.

As we’ve all seen by now, the military escalation between the U.S. and Iran has been dominating headlines since the assassination of Qassim Suleimani, head of the Iran Revolutionary Guard’s “Quds Force.” Chaos and uncertainty surround the situation: Is Iran going to retaliate? Is the U.S. going to attack Iran? Was Suleimani a “good guy” or a “bad guy”? Media pundits are pointing fingers and speculating about the possibility of a Third World War sparked by military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran.

But lost in much of this discourse is the context and fate of Iraq and the Iraqi people. What will happen to the popular protest movement led by Iraqis over the past few months? What will happen next for Iraqis on the ground? The rising violence between the U.S. and Iran inside Iraq threatens Iraqis’ dreams of a better future and will most likely bring about more death and destruction to Iraq. That’s why, as evidenced by the Iraqi Parliament’s vote this morning, Iraqis want them both out.

Since October 2019, there has been an authentic and organic anti-corruption and anti-intervention uprising that has swept across Iraq, mainly led by young Iraqis who came to age after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. Hundreds of unarmed protesters have been killed and thousands injured in the brutal response by the Iraqi government and its sectarian militias, many of whom are backed by both Iran and the U.S.

The protest movement is pushing for reforms within the Iraqi government, and one of its main calls is an end to all foreign interventions. This particular demand has posed a threat to some of the foreign powers that are fighting a proxy war in the country — mainly, the U.S. and Iran. Both countries have funneled money, weapons and training into Iraq to exert maximum control over the current regime, and Iraqi protesters are fed up with living in a corrupt, dysfunctional client state. In the streets of Baghdad and in the south of Iraq, Iraqis from all different sects and ethnicities have chanted against both the U.S. and Iranian interventions.

In response, the Iranian government has tried to manipulate Iraqis into rechanneling their anger at only the U.S. government. Similarly, the U.S. has also tried to manipulate Iraqis into rechanneling their anger toward Iran. These political games were most evident in the recent tit-for-tat military escalation between the U.S. and Iran in Iraq.


The rising violence between the U.S. and Iran inside Iraq threatens Iraqis’ dreams of a better future and will most likely bring about more death and destruction to Iraq.

In the last few days of 2019, Iranian-backed militias staged 11 separate attacks against U.S. bases in Iraq and tried to link the attacks to the protest movement. One of those attacks ended up killing a U.S. contractor and injuring a number of U.S. troops. The U.S. retaliated by bombing the camps of the pro-Iranian militia in Iraq, Kataeb Hezbollah, killing 24 and injuring over 50 — all of them were Iraqis. The militia then staged the protest at the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone. The next day, the U.S. bombed the car that had the leader of Kataeb Hezbollah, al-Muhandis, at the Baghdad airport. None of this made it to U.S. headlines because it was more of the same: the U.S. and Iran using Iraqis as pawns in their political games. But the last event is where things got out of control — the same car that was bombed at the airport had in it Qassim Suleimani, the most powerful Iranian military figure.

Although Suleimani is only now a household name in the U.S., for anyone in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, or other parts of the Middle East, he is a controversial figure in the Middle East. In a region with raging civil wars, he is a hero to those affiliated with the Iraqi government and Assad regime, but he is nothing more than a notorious mass murderer to others. His militias in the region have killed and tortured civilians and razed entire cities to the ground.

Iraqis want both the U.S. and Iran out of their country.


Yet many in the anti-imperialist anti-war movement in the U.S. are notorious for over-simplifying foreign policy and painting a world in which only U.S. imperialism is “bad” and everyone else — especially those at odds with the U.S. empire — is “good.” Many anti-imperialist activists applied this oversimplified logic to analyses of the Soviet Union and Cuba in the past. And in more recent years there has continued to be a disturbing trend of whitewashing the crimes of leaders like Saddam Hussein, Nicolás Maduro, Bashar al-Assad and Suleimani. Back in 2003, it was necessary to criticize Saddam’s crimes and recognize he was a brutal dictator, and at the same time to oppose a U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now in 2020, it’s necessary to criticize Assad’s crimes and oppose the U.S.-led intervention in Syria. It is also necessary to criticize Suleimani’s crimes and the interventionist and oppressive policies of the Iranian government, and still say no to a U.S. war with Iran.

Even for those Iraqis who view Suleimani as a villain and a symbol of Iran’s unwelcome intervention in their country, news of his assassination by the U.S. was not something to be celebrated. Many Iraqis continue to think Trump is also a villain and still want both the U.S. and Iran out of their country.

From most Iraqis’ perspective, this is not complicated at all: There are no good guys. It’s not about who should interfere in the country, it’s about whether or not foreigners should have a say in Iraq’s present or future.

Iran supporters in Iraq, such as Hezbollah, claim that Iran is the good guy and that Iran can’t withdraw from Iraq because that would hand Iraq to the U.S. Meanwhile, U.S. supporters in Iraq claim that the U.S. is the good guy and if it were to withdraw, that would hand Iraq to Iran. From most Iraqis’ perspective, this is not complicated at all: There are no good guys. It’s not about who should interfere in the country, it’s about whether or not foreigners should have a say in Iraq’s present or future. It’s about giving Iraq back to Iraqis.

Iraqis demonstrators have been loudly and clearly conveying through months of protests that what they want is their independence, sovereignty and self-determination. They have paid a very heavy price with their blood and treasure because of interventions from the U.S., Iran and others.

Today’s vote in the Iraqi Parliament reflects a widespread awareness among Iraqis that military escalation between the U.S. and Iran threatens the Iraqi protest movement and could bring much death and destruction to the already war-torn country.

The best thing that people in the U.S. can do is to recognize Iraqis’ suffering and pain, and demand that our government and military get out of their way. The U.S. presence in Iraq is an obstacle in the way of Iraqi aspiration, and it is also being used as an excuse by Iran and others to continue meddling in Iraq’s business. An immediate end to U.S. military aid and weapons sales to the Iraqi government and a withdrawal from Iraq completely would be two important steps in the right direction.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Raed Jarrar (@raedjarrar) is an Iraqi-American political advocate based in Washington, D.C.

PHOTO: Iraqi protesters in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah clash with supporters of Iraq's pro-Iranian paramilitary group Hashed Al-Shaabi on January 5, 2020, denouncing both the U.S. and Iran as "occupiers" while demanding reforms within their own government. AFP via Getty Images

Iran Shifts on a Landmark Nuclear Deal in response to the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian commander, in Baghdad.

BREAKING NEWS

Iran said it was ending all its commitments to the 2015 nuclear deal and would no longer limit uranium enrichment.

Sunday, January 5, 2020 

1:11 PM EST

Here are the latest updates.

https://www.nytimes.com/…/wor…/middleeast/Iran-us-trump.html

LIVE UPDATES

Iran Shifts on a Landmark Nuclear Deal: 
Live Updates

The announcement followed a vote in Iraq’s Parliament to expel American troops, in response to the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian commander, in Baghdad.

Right Now

Tehran said in a statement that its nuclear program would “have no limitations” on enriching uranium.

Here’s what you need to know:

Iran’s nuclear program ‘will have no limitations in production.’

Iraq’s Parliament votes to oust U.S. coalition troops.

American allies fear an 
assassination’s consequences.

U.S.-led coalition suspends its fight against ISIS.


Trump and Pompeo say U.S. could attack Iran directly.


PHOTO: A rally in Tehran to mourn the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani on Sunday.Credit...Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times



Iran’s nuclear program ‘will have no limitations in production.’

Iran’s government said it was no longer abiding by a commitment it made under the 2015 nuclear deal and it would not limit its enrichment of uranium.

The decision to lift all restrictions on the production of nuclear fuel meant the effective end of the nuclear deal, experts said, though Iran left open the possibility that it will return to the limits if sanctions are lifted.

“It’s finished. If there’s no limitation on production, then there is no deal,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a nonprofit in Washington.

The announcement came after Iran’s National Security Council held an emergency meeting on Sunday to discuss the country’s nuclear policy in the aftermath of Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani’s assassination.

The statement said: “The Islamic Republic of Iran will end its final limitations in the nuclear deal, meaning the limitation in the number of centrifuges. Therefore Iran’s nuclear program will have no limitations in production including enrichment capacity and percentage and number of enriched uranium and research and expansion.”
But the government said Iran would continue its cooperation with International Atomic Agency.

The announcement followed several steps by Iran to move away from the terms of the agreement, nearly two years after President Trump withdrew the United States from the deal. Since that renunciation, the Trump administration has imposed severe sanctions aimed at crippling Iran’s economy.

The nuclear agreement had ended many economic sanctions on Iran in return for its verifiable pledge to use nuclear power peacefully. The European parties to the deal, including Britain, France and Germany, had struggled to preserve the agreement amid rising tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Iran’s statement Sunday did not include details about its enrichment ambitions. And the country did not say it was expelling the inspectors who monitor its nuclear program. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, tweeted:

Mark Fitzpatrick, a nuclear expert on Iran and associate fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, wrote on Twitter that the announcement was “ambiguous,” with room for “both negotiation and escalation.”

Iraq’s Parliament votes to oust U.S. coalition troops.

PHOTO: A photograph provided by the Iraqi prime minister’s press office showing the Iraqi Parliament in session in Baghdad on Sunday.Credit...Iraqi Prime Minister Press Office

Iraqi lawmakers voted 170-0 on Sunday in favor of expelling American troops from their country, just days after a United States drone strike killed the leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force on Iraqi soil.

The vote was not final and many lawmakers did not attend the session. But Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi drafted the language and submitted the bill to Parliament, leaving little doubt about his support.

The drone strike that killed the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, at the Baghdad airport on Friday also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy head of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of Iranian-backed militias.

The attack was viewed in Iraq as a violation of the nation’s sovereignty, and the country’s Foreign Ministry said on Sunday that it had summoned the American ambassador in Baghdad.

Iraq’s Parliament was divided over demands from angry citizens to expel American troops. Many of its 328 members, primarily Kurds and Sunnis, did not attend Sunday’s session and did not vote. In his speech to lawmakers, Mr. Mahdi laid out two possibilities: to either quickly end the presence of foreign forces in Iraq, or to set a timeline for that expulsion.

The measure approved by the Parliament did not include a timeline, and only instructed the government to end the presence of foreign forces in Iraq. Officials said no decision had been made about whether any American troops would be able to stay, or under what conditions.

Iranian officials reacted to the vote with congratulatory messages and said General Soleimani’s death had delivered a huge victory over the United States.

Hesameddin Ashena, a top adviser to President Hassan Rouhani, in a Twitter post, said: “Expanding friendship with our neighbors and domestic unity are the best gifts for protecting our national security. America and Israel are the only winners of a rift between neighbors.”

Asked about the vote on Sunday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the United States would continue to battle the Islamic State. “It is the United States that is prepared to help the Iraqi people get what it is they deserve and continue our mission there to take down terrorism from ISIS and others in the region,” he said in an interview on the CBS program “Face the Nation.”

If American forces leave the country, European Union and coalition forces will likely have to follow, because they rely on the American logistics and intelligence resources to protect their forces and the civilians that work with them. NATO has already announced the suspension of its training mission for Iraqi forces.

American allies fear an assassination’s consequences.

From Israel to Saudi Arabia, the United States’ allies in the Middle East have long warned Washington about Iran’s campaigns in the region — many of them masterminded by General Suleimani.

But with scant exception, their response to his killing has been silence.

Iran has built close ties with the government of Syria and armed groups in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. That puts many Iranian partners within firing range of American allies like Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

For many of them, the wisest course of action over the weekend seemed to be to say nothing.

“Saudi Arabia and all the gulf countries are just quiet,” said Khalid al-Dakhil, a political sociologist in Saudi Arabia. “They don’t want to antagonize the Iranians, because the situation in the region is so delicate, so divided, so sensitive, that you don’t want to stir it up further.”

The spread of Iran’s network means that it could rely on allied forces to strike — for instance at Saudi oil facilities, just across the Persian Gulf — while giving Tehran a way to deny responsibility.

And many officials in the Middle East are concerned about the degree of support they can expect from Mr. Trump should they become targets of Iranian retaliation, cyberattack or sabotage. Prince Khalid bin Salman, the Saudi deputy defense minister, flew to Washington this weekend to meet with American officials.

In Iraq, pro-Iranian militias pose a powerful threat to groups that prefer the United States.
In Lebanon, American allies kept quiet to avoid Hezbollah, a major political party and the country’s strongest military force.

And even in Israel, celebrations were muted, with officials wanting to avoid any suggestion of involvement in the killing.

“The entire region is on edge, as we are in unchartered territory,” said Taufiq Rahim, a senior fellow at the foundation New America who works in the Persian Gulf. “There is no way to be ready for what comes next, because anything could be a target.”

U.S.-led coalition suspends its fight against ISIS.

The American-led coalition in Iraq and Syria said on Sunday that it was pausing its yearslong mission of attacking the Islamic State and training local forces in both countries as United States forces braced for retaliation from Iran over the killing of its top military commander.

A statement from the American command pointed to recent attacks on Iraqi and American bases, one of which killed an American contractor last month. “We have therefore paused these activities, subject to continuous review,” it said of the fight against ISIS.

After the killing last week of the commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani — who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of troops over the years — the approximately 5,200 troops in Iraq and several hundred in Syria are focused on fortifying their outposts.

The assassination of General Suleimani removed the leader of one of the Islamic State’s most effective opponents. He had been responsible for building up the alliance of Iran-backed militias that played a significant role in driving the militants out of their strongholds in Syria and Iraq.

Also on Sunday, Islamic State militants attacked Iraqi security forces near the northern city of Kirkuk, killing two Iraqi soldiers and injuring another, the Iraqi Joint Command said.

Trump and Pompeo say U.S. could attack Iran directly.

Echoing President Trump’s remarks the day before, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned on Sunday that the United States could attack Iran itself if leaders there took hostile actions against American interests in the aftermath of the drone strike that killed a top general.

“I’ve been part of the discussion and planning process — everything I’ve seen about how we will respond with great force and great vigor if the Iranian leadership makes a bad decision,” Mr. Pompeo said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We hope that they won’t, but when they do, America will respond.”

In appearances on five television news shows on Sunday morning, Mr. Pompeo underscored Mr. Trump’s message the previous day that the United States had chosen sites to attack within Iran if Tehran ordered assaults on American assets or citizens in retaliation for a drone strike that killed General Suleimani in Baghdad.

He tweeted on Saturday that the United States had pinpointed 52 targets in Iran if it retaliated for the killing, prompting Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, to say on Twitter that “targeting cultural sites is a war crime.”

Mr. Zarif added, “whether kicking or screaming, end of U.S. malign presence in West Asia has begun.”

Mr. Trump said on Sunday that “media posts” would serve as notification to Congress about a potential strike.

Mr. Pompeo also blamed the 2015 nuclear deal for the rising hostilities. He told CNN that “this war kicked off” when the Obama administration entered into the agreement. Though Tehran had been abiding by the terms of the deal, Mr. Pompeo said, the agreement gave Iran “free rein” to expand its regional activities.

In protest over that latest threat, Iran on Sunday summoned the Swiss envoy representing American interests in Tehran, Reuters reported.

Iran and its allies mourn the two commanders.

VIDEO: 1:38

Huge Crowds Gather to Mourn Iran’s Top Commander
The body of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was brought back to Iran. Mourners flooded the streets, weeping and holding up posters of the general, as his coffin moved through the crowds. Credit: Mohammad Taghi/Tasnim News, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images


Hundreds of thousands of mourners poured into the streets of Iran to pay their respects to Maj. General Qassim Suleimani on Sunday, one day after joint funerals were held in Baghdad for the slain Quds Force leader and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a powerful militia leader in Iraq and a close adviser to the general.

Both men were killed by an American drone strike early Friday at Baghdad’s airport, inflaming tensions between Washington and Tehran and raising fears that more violence would follow.

President Trump said he had ordered the airstrikes not just as retaliation for past attacks on Americans, but also to prevent “imminent and sinister attacks” on more Americans. But Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and its president, Hassan Rouhani, both promised that the country would take “revenge” for the killing.

Iraq’s most influential Shiite religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, sent a letter of condolence to Iran’s supreme leader that praised General Soleimani for helping fight the Islamic State and stabilize Iraq over the past decade.

Iran’s regional reach was visible during the services in Baghdad, which were as close to a state ceremony in Iraq as any since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Many mourners were members of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, militias that came together to fight the Islamic State — and the most powerful of which are affiliated with Iran.

Tens of thousands of pro-Iranian fighters marched through Baghdad, waving flags and chanting that “revenge is coming” to the United States.

“The worst thing that happened to Iran in the recent months was not the killing of General Suleimani but the turning of the Iraqi Shia against Iran before he was killed,” said Abbas Kadhim, the head of the Iraq Initiative at the Atlantic Council, referring to recent protests against Iranian influence. “That was reversed by the killing of Suleimani.”

Mr. Kadhim said that while Iran could afford the loss of a general or a politician, they could not afford “the turning of the Shia in neighboring countries against them.”

“That’s why this show of support for Iran in the holy cities, in Lebanon and Iraq after the killing of Suleimani is a huge victory,” he said. “They regained the most important element of their strategy in the region, which is the support of local populations.”

Mr. al-Muhandis, one of Iran’s top lieutenants in Iraq, was accused of playing a role in embassy bombings in Kuwait in the 1980s and funneling weapons to pro-Iranian militias in the 2000s. Many Iraqis saw him as a hero for his role in the battle against the Islamic State.

Hezbollah's leader threatens U.S. military, but says civilians should not be targeted.

The leader of Hezbollah, the Islamist movement backed by Iran, warned in a speech Sunday that the killing of General Suleimani would only motivate Iran’s allies in the Middle East to strike harder against the United States and Israel.

“Assassinating General Suleimani means targeting the entire axis of resistance,” said the militant leader, Hassan Nasrallah, speaking via video feed at a memorial service. “The United States will leave our region humiliated. When U.S. troops leave the region in coffins, Washington will realize it has lost, and Trump will realize that he has lost the election.”

Mr. Nasrallah vowed to target American bases, soldiers and Marines — a response he called “retribution, a fair one” — but took care to add that he was “not talking about the American people at all.”

Hezbollah, a militia and political party based in Lebanon, is perhaps the most formidable of the network of proxy forces Iran has built up around the Middle East, which also includes pro-Iranian militias in Iraq.

The State Department has classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and the militia has battled and skirmished repeatedly with Israel. It maintained close ties with General Suleimani, and was now mourning him as a hero over the weekend
Mr. Nasrallah said that he had met with the general on Wednesday in Beirut, where General Suleimani had stopped before flying to Baghdad. The group released what appeared to be a photo of the two men meeting.

On Sunday, Mr. Nasrallah said that the general’s death marked “the start of a new stage, not just for Iraq or Iran, but for the entire region” — a stage he warned would be awash in anti-American violence.

Young Americans are alarmed by the threat of a wider war.

As the United States has escalated its conflict with Iran, many in the generation of Americans who have grown up since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have become alarmed by the prospect of being swept up in an extended conflict.

Over high school lunch tables, teenagers speak of World War III. When they get home, they tearfully ask their parents whether they could be drafted. Social media feeds have exploded with predictions of military action and wisecracking memes about end times.

With an all-volunteer military fighting the wars in 
Afghanistan and the Middle East that have been simmering since they were toddlers, many young men had grown used to thinking of the longstanding requirement that they register for the draft as a mere bureaucratic formality. “Now it’s like, what exactly did we sign up for?” said Adrian Flynn, a high school senior in New York who turned 18 in October.

And demonstrators took to the streets of cities across the United States over the weekend to protest the killing of an Iranian general and the possibility that it could lead to yet another war.

“Unless the people of the United States rise up and stop it, this war will engulf the whole region and could quickly turn into a global conflict of unpredictable scope and potentially the gravest consequences,” said a statement by the coalition behind the protests. That group included Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, an antiwar coalition, and Code Pink, an antiwar organization led by women.

More than 80 protests were organized, in places like Washington, Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, Miami and Philadelphia. Marchers in Times Square in New York chanted, “U.S. out of the Middle East.”

Organizers had begun calling for nationwide protests early last week, before the drone strike that killed General Suleimani. They had already been fearful of the possible effects of rising tensions between the United States and Iran in recent months.
U.K. and Germany express sympathy for U.S. position.

Even as Western allies said they had been given no warning about the United States’ killing of General Suleimani, Britain’s foreign minister, Dominic Raab, said on Sunday that America had a right to self-defense in killing the Iranian military commander.
Asked in an interview with the BBC whether the killing was legal, Mr. Raab said, “There is a right of self-defense.”

“It was General Suleimani’s job description to engage proxies and militias,” Mr. Raab said, “to attack Western countries that were legitimately there.”

Describing General Suleimani as a “regional menace,” he said he did not agree that the killing was an act of war — a label that Iran’s United Nations ambassador used to describe the killing, and which analysts have said is applicable.

Mr. Raab said he had spoken to Iraq’s prime minister and president to urge a de-escalation of tensions in the region after the drone killing.

President Emmanuel Macron of France spoke by telephone with President Trump on Sunday, according to a statement from the French president’s office, and expressed solidarity with allies “in light of the attacks carried out in recent weeks against the coalition in Iraq,” his office said in the statement.

Mr. Macron also expressed concerns about “destabilizing activities of the Quds force under General Qassem Soleimani,” his office said, and urged Iran avoid “taking any measures that could lead to an escalation in the situation and destabilizing the region.”

In Germany, a government spokeswoman also expressed sympathy for the United States’ position. “The American action was a reaction to a series of military provocations for which Iran is responsible,” the spokeswoman, Ulrike Demmer, said at a news conference on Friday, according to Reuters.

“We also see with great concern Iran’s activities in the region,” she said, adding that Berlin would aim to de-escalate the tensions.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had criticized Europes response to the killing of General Suleimani, telling Fox News on Friday night that “the Europeans haven’t been as helpful as I wish that they could be.”

Reporting was contributed by Alissa J. Rubin, Ben Hubbard, Falih Hassan, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Eric Schmitt, Vivian Yee, David D. Kirkpatrick, Edward Wong, Tess Felder, Yonette Joseph and Mariel Padilla.

© 2020 The New York Times Company

PHOTO: A rally in Tehran to mourn the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani on Sunday. Credit: Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

A NYT reader on the history of the real relationship between Iran and the United States since 1953

cynicalskeptic
Greater NY
January 4, 2020
Times Pick


Would ANY of this have occurred if the US had NOT removed the elected premier of Iran in 1953? The blowback from US interference in the region has been unending - a history most Americans don't know a thing about. It is astounding how many people have died, how much destruction has occurred as a direct result of US interference in the region. What exactly has the US gained for the lives lost and fortune squandered? Left alone, Iran would have become a westernized secular state. Saddam Hussein might never have come to power in Iraq No Iran-Iraq war No invasion of Kuwait No Gulf Wars No 9/11 No US in Afghanistan No US in Iraq A stable secular Syria Without the US/Shah alliance would the Soviets have invaded Afghanistan? How can anyone justify US interference in the region over the last 75 years?

Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, called Mr. Trump’s actions on Iran “a nightmare.”

https://www.nytimes.com/20…/…/05/us/politics/trump-iran.html

White house memo

For Trump, the Burden May Be Proving This Is Not the Moment His Critics Predicted


WASHINGTON — For three years, President Trump’s critics have expressed concern over how he would handle a genuine international crisis, warning that a commander in chief known for impulsive action might overreach with dangerous consequences. 

In the angry and frenzied aftermath of the American drone strike that killed Iran’s top general, with vows of revenge hanging in the air, Mr. Trump confronts a decisive moment that will test whether those critics were right or whether they misjudged him. 

“The moment we all feared is likely upon us,” Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and vocal critic of Mr. Trump, wrote on Twitter over the weekend. “An unstable President in way over his head, panicking, with all his experienced advisers having quit, and only the sycophantic amateurs remaining. Assassinating foreign leaders, announcing plans to bomb civilians. A nightmare.


Chris Murphy ✔
@ChrisMurphyCT

The moment we all feared is likely upon us.

An unstable President in way over his head, panicking, with all his experienced advisers having quit, and only the sycophantic amateurs remaining.

Assassinating foreign leaders, announcing plans to bomb civilians.

A nightmare.

114K
7:45 PM - Jan 4, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

38.2K people are talking about this

PHOTO: President Trump departing West Palm Beach, Fla., on Sunday. Mr. Trump did not retreat from his vow to respond to any Iranian provocations with overwhelming force. Credit: Eric Thayer for The New York Times
nytimes.com

It's Time To Build A National Antiwar Movement

All,

We desperately need at least 2 million citizens to actively participate in a massive march on the white house and the Pentagon NOW...TODAY. It's absolutely imperative that we seriously marshall all of our antiwar strength throughout the entire country to engage in a colossal and ongoing civil disobedience campaign to stop the vile sinister criminal known forevermore as our very own IMPEACHED SCUMBAG-IN-CHIEF from dragging this country and the rest of the world down into the bloody sewer that is this maniac's most heartfelt desire. It's time to stop fucking around and PRETENDING that this unhinged monster and international disgrace is even sane let alone capable of resolving global conflict via rational political decisions and state diplomacy. 

Ultimately we must not fail in our collective effort to remove this malevolent human malady from office and to aggressively oppose and resist with everything within us his clearly diabolical plans to use us all as cannon fodder in his neofascist fantasy of maintaining, and extending the tyrannical madness that currently passes for "politics" in this rapidly disintegrating empire masquerading as a democratic Republic. Stay tuned and remain vigilant no matter what happens. Trust me: We're really gonna need it now, more than ever...

Kofi

https://www.nytimes.com/…/04/opin…/trump-suleimani-iran.html


Opinion

The Dire Consequences of Trump’s Suleimani Decision

One thing is clear after the killing of Iran’s second most important official: Americans are not safer.

by Susan E. Rice
January 4, 2020
New York Times



PHOTO: A U.S. Army paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division preparing to leave Fort Bragg, N.C., on Wednesday. Credit: Jonathan Drake/Reuters



Ms. Rice, a contributing opinion writer, was the national security adviser from 2013 to 2017.

Americans would be wise to brace for war with Iran.

Full-scale conflict is not a certainty, but the probability is higher than at any point in decades. Despite President Trump’s oft-professed desire to avoid war with Iran and withdraw from military entanglements in the Middle East, his decision to order the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s second most important official, as well as Iraqi leaders of an Iranian-backed militia, now locks our two countries in a dangerous escalatory cycle that will likely lead to wider warfare.

How did we get here? What are the consequences of these targeted killings? Can we avoid a worse-case scenario?

The escalatory cycle began in May 2018, when President Trump recklessly ignored the advice of his national security team and the opposition of our allies in unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal — despite Iran’s full adherence to its terms and its efficacy in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program. Since then, the Trump administration has had no coherent strategy to constrain Iran’s program or to counter other aspects of its nefarious behavior.

Mr. Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign” to impose ever more debilitating economic sanctions did not force Iran to capitulate; instead, predictably, it induced Tehran to lash out with a series of increasingly bold military provocations against Sunni Arab and Western targets while restarting important aspects of its nuclear program. Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region, notably in Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, have only intensified. At the same time, it has conducted a brutal crackdown on its civilian population. None of the Trump administration’s stated objectives have been met; if anything, the United States’ security and strategic positions in the region have weakened.

In deciding to eliminate General Suleimani, Mr. Trump and his team argue they were acting in self-defense to thwart imminent attacks on Americans in Iraq and the region. This may be true, as General Suleimani was a ruthless murderer and terrorist with much American blood on his hands. Unfortunately, it’s hard to place confidence in the representations of an administration that lies almost daily about matters large and small and, even in this critical instance, failed to brief, much less consult, bipartisan leaders in Congress.

Second, even if the killing of General Suleimani is justified by self-defense, it doesn’t make it strategically wise. Given the demonstrably haphazard and shortsighted nature of the Trump administration’s national security decision-making process (including calling off strikes against Iran 10 minutes before impact, inviting the Taliban to Camp David and abandoning the Kurds), it’s doubtful the administration spent much time gaming out the second and third order consequences of their action or preparing to protect American military and diplomatic personnel in the region.

To assess the fallout of killing General Suleimani, we must understand that the Iranian regime cannot survive internal dissent or sustain its powerful position in the region if it backs down from this provocation. For Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a strong response is essential. For the United States, the question is: What form will it take and how quickly will it come? One thing is clear: Americans are not safer, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued on Fox News the morning after. Rather, American citizens are at greater risk of attack across a far wider battlefield than before. That is why the State Department has urged all Americans to depart not only Iraq but also Pakistan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

In Iraq, Iranian-backed militias have attacked United States and allied installations, and can continue to do so around the country. The government in Baghdad has declared the killing a violation of the terms of the American military presence in Iraq. We will face mounting pressure to withdraw our military and diplomatic personnel from the country. If we leave, the United States will suffer a major strategic defeat: Iran will justifiably claim victory, and the gains of the fight against ISIS will be lost as the terrorist group rebuilds.

There is no hope now to revive, much less strengthen, the Iran nuclear deal, and we must expect Iran will accelerate its efforts to revive its nuclear program without constraint.

The global economy is imperiled, as the Gulf States’ energy infrastructure faces the risk of an Iranian attack, and commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the larger Gulf region is threatened.

United States military, diplomatic and commercial operations as well as civilian targets throughout the Middle East are in range of both Iranian missiles and terrorist cells. From Afghanistan and Europe to Africa and Latin America, Iranian proxies — once latent — can stage asymmetric attacks against American and allied targets without warning. Even in the United States, we have reason to fear that terrorist sleeper cells could be activated. Worse, we face these threats now substantially alone, as the Trump administration apparently neglected to consult or even warn our key allies and partners about the impending risks to their interests that result from killing General Suleimani.

In the face of Iranian reprisals, it will be difficult for the United States to de-escalate tensions and avoid a larger conflict. Iran gets the next move. The United States has failed to deter Tehran thus far, even with the deployment of 14,000 additional American troops to the Gulf region since May. The announcement this week that the Pentagon was sending 3,500 more soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division seems unlikely to change things.

When Iran does respond, its response will likely be multifaceted and occur at unpredictable times and in multiple places. President Trump will then face what may yet be the most consequential national security decision of his presidency. If he reacts with additional force, the risk is great that the confrontation will spiral into a wider military conflict. If he fails to react in kind, he will likely invite escalating Iranian aggression.

It’s hard to envision how this ends short of war.

Related:
More views on the killing of Qassim Suleimani

Opinion | Jonathan Stevenson: American Foreign Policy Is Broken. Suleimani’s Killing Proves It.
Jan. 4, 2020


Opinion | The Editorial Board: ‘The Game Has Changed’
Jan. 3, 2020


Opinion | Barbara Slavin: Qassim Suleimani’s Killing Will Unleash Chaos
Jan. 3, 2020


Opinion | Thomas L. Friedman: Trump Kills Iran’s Most Overrated Warrior
Jan. 3, 2020


Opinion | Bret Stephens: Suleimani Died as He Had Killed
Jan. 3, 2020


Opinion | Narges Bajoghli: Suleimani’s Death Changes Nothing for Iran
Jan. 3, 2020


The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser from 2013 to 2017 and a former United States ambassador to the United Nations, is a contributing opinion writer. She is the author of the memoir, "Tough Love: My Story of the Things Worth Fighting For." @AmbassadorRice 

PHOTO: A U.S. Army paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division preparing to leave Fort Bragg, N.C., on Wednesday.Credit...Jonathan Drake/Reuters