SOHAIL A AZMIE
KILLING of Maj Gen Qasim Suleimani, the head of Irani Al Quds elite force, brings a new twist into an already dilapidated US-Iran bilateral strain. Suleimani was on a visit to Iraq where he was targeted by the US drone attack resulting in death of the General and 7 others. The attack was termed as ‘stupid and dangerous’ by the Iranian ForeignMinister Jawad Zarif while observing that ‘the US would now be responsible for all possible reactions’. Iranian supreme leader stated, unequivocally, that they would ‘sternly avenge the death of Suleimani’. The latest episode is likely to result into significant regional instability paving the way for a ‘hot war’ between the US and Iran. ‘Selective targeting’ has been the US principal strategy against Iran, which may be regarded as continuation of the US policy through ‘forced elimination’ of leadership considered detrimental to the American interests in the Middle East. Unapologetic as the US has always been, even in the case of downing of an IranianAirbus plane killing nearly 300 people in 1988, it declared the killing as ‘protection of the US personnel abroad’. The air strike, directly authorized by Trump, has all the markers to push the region into an uncontrolled chaos. It also has tremendous economic consequences, because of the region fuelling the world ‘economic engine’. Oil prices would soar high with a potential risk of global recession. US-Iran bilateral fragility started with the US pulling out of JCPOA. This was, geostrategically, a significant step that had reset the normalization of Iranian engagement with the rest of the world. Trump alleged that despite mainstreaming Iran with the global community and easing of sanctions, it did not stop, nuclear weapons program, supporting terrorists in Yemen and Lebanon and lastly threatening the American interests. Trump believes that the only way forward to contain Iran is through imposition of sanctions and military coercion. The US successfully stopped India and EU nations from doing business with Iran, which has negatively impacted the Iranian economy. There have been several attacks on the tankers and oil rigs, which Trump claims have been conducted bythe Iranian forces. In order to stabilize the Persian Gulf security situation,the US dispatched a carrier battle group to the region. Iran calledtheAmerican naval move as ‘war mongering’ and an act predeterminedto create chaosinthe Persian Gulf. Middle East would find itself in a state of enhanced flux, uncertain geopolitical dispensation andmarred with distrust among the states. The US had long considered Iran as a ‘counterweight’to Arabs and Israel. All previous US Presidents wanted to keep Iran as a credible and viable threat for the Arabs, which was the ‘balancing policy’ and that appears to be changing. Killing of Qasim Suleimani could be one of the many ‘shaping operations’ to steadily create conditions of region-wise unrest, which could attract the US arms sale by the Gulf countries, and also provide reasons for the US presence in the oil rich region of the world, which has the true potential to influence economic trends of the world. Russia and China, which Trump calls the ‘revisionist states’, appeared to have taken a neutral stance of the situation and did not clearly voice their concerns on the unfolding situation in the Middle East. However, since Chinese energy needs significantly depend upon the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, it would make every effort to convince the US of not engaging Iran militarily. This directly implies enhanced naval presence by India and China to protect their merchantmen traversing through Persian Gulf. Though the US and India have strong strategic partnership, as described in Trump’s new Indo-Pacific Strategy, yet India had its own plans to secure its merchant shipping independent of the American naval disposition in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Middle Eastern economies are expected to suffer negatively. There is already news of ‘Dutch Disease’ surrounding the ME economies, which could complicate things further should the oil sales decline. Pakistan, on the other hand, would have grave effect if the region plunges into crises. Though the traffic is passing without interruption as of now, but situation can deteriorate unexpectedly that could significantly affect the fuel flow from the Gulf. As 95% of Pakistan’s oil supplies come from the crises-plagued region, any military imbroglio would cut the oil supplies that could result in severely affecting its economic activities. The situation is a paradox for Pakistan as who to render its diplomatic support. As a matter of principle, one may say that the US’ theorems of ‘unilateralism’ and ‘exceptionalism’ have been the drivers of chaos rather than stability. Remembering Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria lead one to argue that the US strike that killed the Iranian General was a ‘one-sided affair’ devoid of acceptable reason. US hypotheses have often been misleading and considerably untrue when it comes to the American military using force, be it the Iraqi WMDs or Iranian Gen Suleimani purportedly planning attacks on the US diplomats. This cumulatively suggests that Pakistan, as a matter of policy, voice against the use of force in an unclear and dubious manner, as the US has done very often, sans creating peace or stable conditions. —The writer is a freelance columnist.
