Trump administration justifies killing of Soleimani

Qassem Soleimani, Commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, was killed in the US air strike in Baghdad, the attack was ordered by President Donald Trump.  His killing has instantly upped the military stakes in the region. Some believe that his killing was an adventurist step that will increase tensions throughout the region and make the world even more dangerous. Others believe that the incident opens the doors of the region to all possibilities, except peace and stability and United States will have to bear the responsibility for that. Let us review what the western media has to say.

According to media reports, Trump administration has justified killing of Soleimani as an act of self defense. This announcement came in response to the accusations that United States has violated international law and concerns raised by legal experts and a senior UN rights investigator.

According to Reuters, Republican and Democratic lawmakers dispute the wisdom of the attack. Some legal experts questioned whether Trump had the legal authority to target Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the permission of Iraq’s government, and whether it was legal under international and US law.

Iraq’s prime minister said Washington had with the attack violated a deal for keeping US troops in his country, and several Iraqi political factions united in a call for American troops to be expelled.

The UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force against other states but there is an exception if a state gives consent to the use of force on its territory. Legal experts said the absence of consent from Iraq makes it difficult for the United States to justify the killing.

Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway, an international law expert, said on Twitter that the available facts “do not seem to support” the assertion that the strike was an act of self-defense, and concluded it was “legally tenuous under both domestic and international law.”

The Pentagon said targeting Soleimani was aimed at deterring “future Iranian attack plans,” while Trump said the Iranian general was targeted because he was planning “imminent and sinister” attacks on US diplomats and military personnel.

Robert Chesney, a national security law expert at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said the administration’s best argument on the UN Charter issue is self defense. “If you accept that this guy was planning operations to kill Americans, that provides the authority to respond,” he said.

Scott Anderson, a former legal adviser to the US Embassy in Baghdad under Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, said Trump’s justification so far under international law is questionable, but he could try to argue that the Iraqi government was either unwilling or unable to deal with the threat posed by Soleimani, giving the United States the right to act without Iraq’s consent.

Article 51 of the U.N. Charter covers an individual or collective right to self-defense against armed attack. The United States used the article to justify taking action in Syria against Islamic State militants in 2014. The US troops in Iraq had been fighting Islamic State, and about 5,000 troops remain, most of them in an advisory capacity.

A strategic framework agreement signed in 2008 between Washington and Baghdad called for close defense cooperation to deter threats to Iraqi “sovereignty, security and territorial integrity,” but prohibited the United States from using Iraq as a launching point for attacks on other countries.

Under historic norms of international law, a country can defend itself preemptively if it acts out of necessity and responds proportionally to the threat.

Agnes Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, questioned whether the attack met this threshold.

The targeting of Soleimani “appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self-defense,” she said. “Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.”

Democratic lawmakers called on Trump to provide details about the imminent threat that he said Soleimani represented.

“I believe there was a threat, but the question of how imminent is still one I want answered,” Senator Mark Warner, the Democratic vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Reuters.

Other critics raised questions about Trump’s authority to kill Soleimani under US law, and whether he should have acted without first notifying Congress.

Legal experts noted that recent US presidents from both parties have taken an expansive view of their unilateral ability to preemptively engage in force, including through targeted killings, a view bolstered by executive branch lawyers in successive administrations.

In the case of Soleimani, the administration’s self-defense arguments may hinge on disclosing specific knowledge of his imminent plans to attack Americans.

Self-defense could allow the administration to act without having to first notify Congress or act under a prior congressional authorization for the use of military force, Chesney said.

Democratic lawmakers did not defend Soleimani, who US officials have said is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, but they called on Trump to consult with Congress going forward.

“This administration, like all others, has the right to act in self-defense,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst who worked in Iraq focusing on Iranian-backed militias. “But the administration must come to Congress immediately and consult.”

US warns of preemptive attack against forces allegedly backed by Iran

The predictable result of the Trump administration’s reckless bluster, escalation and miscalculation in the Middle East is that the super power is now hurtling closer to an unauthorized war with Iran. America has the surprising audacity of attributing to Iran the protests of the Iraqi people against (Washington’s) savage killing of at least 25 Iraqis.

The embassy incident came seven years after the 2012 attack by armed militants on the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of the US Ambassador and three other Americans and led to multiple congressional investigations.

The unprecedented attack on an American diplomatic mission in Iraq marked a sharp escalation of the proxy conflict between the United States and Iran - both influential players in the country - and plunged US relations with Iraq to their worst level in years.

Mark Esper, US Defense Secretary said on Thursday that there were indications Iran or the forces it backs may be planning additional attacks and said it was possible the United States might have to take preemptive action to protect American lives.

“There are some indications out there that they may be planning additional attacks, that is nothing new ... we’ve seen this for two or three months now,” Esper told reporters.

“If that happens then we will act and by the way, if we get word of attacks or some type indication, we will take preemptive action as well to protect American forces to protect American lives.”

Iranian-backed demonstrators who hurled rocks at the U.S. embassy in two days of protests withdrew on Wednesday after Washington dispatched extra troops.

Donald Trump, US President, who faces a re-election campaign in 2020, accused Iran of orchestrating the violence. He threatened on Tuesday to retaliate against Iran but said later he did not want war.

The unrest outside the US embassy in Baghdad followed US air raids on Sunday against bases of the Tehran-backed Kataib Hezbollah group. Washington said the air strikes, which killed 25 people, were in retaliation for missile attacks that killed a US contractor in northern Iraq last week.

The protests marked a new turn in the shadow war between Washington and Tehran playing out across the Middle East.

“The game has changed and we are prepared to do what is necessary to defend our personnel and our interests and our partners in the region,” Esper said.

During the same press briefing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said there had been a sustained campaign by Kataib Hezbollah against US personnel since at least October and the missile attack in northern Iraq was designed to kill.

“Thirty-one rockets aren’t designed as a warning shot, that is designed to inflict damage and kill,” Milley said.

Motives behind US air strikes in Iraq and Syria

The fighter jets of United States targeted several bases of the Iraqi popular forces of Hashd al-Shaabi at border with Syria on Sunday evening. In a statement, the US defense secretary confirmed the attacks. Now the question is, which objectives had the US wanted to achieve from the attacks?

There is growing perception that the US was not comfortable with the consolidation of relationship between Iraq and Syria, especially in security and economic fields. Therefore, Washington wanted to seal Iraq-Syria common borders and passageways by targeting military positions in Iraq and Syria as well as providing support for the existing terrorists and creating fresh terrorist group.

Keeping the terrorist groups protected and providing backup for them seems to be the main objective of the US  after a number of reports hinted towards relocation of terrorists from Syria into Iraq or vice versa. In the meantime, the US has raided the Iraqi army several times to provide support for the terrorist groups in the country. 

Certainly, weakening Iraq and turning it into a crisis-hit country is aimed at providing the ground for the US to impose its will on Baghdad. Weakening the Iraqi popular forces and damaging relations and cooperation between the country’s army and the popular forces are also among the main objectives of such plots. 

Other dimensions of the US recent plot against Iraq can be mentioned as spreading chaos and turning peaceful protests of the Iraqis into violence, destabilizing Iraq’s political situation by interfering in the trend of forming the country’s new government, weakening Iraq’s security forces through conducting attacks on the Army centers and Hashd al-Shaabi’s bases and cutting Iraq’s ties with its neighboring countries including with Iran.
The new US plot is also aimed at deviating public opinion from critical situation of the Zionist regime of Israel as well as appeasing the Zionist lobby to continue supporting Donald Trump who is facing the congress impeachment.

By acts, the US proves it is the number one supporter of terrorism. Washington’s claim of campaign against terrorism is only a deception that is why their claimed military coalitions in the Persian Gulf and in the Bab al-Mandab Strait have brought about nothing but enhancing terrorism.   

The US has not been a savior but it has been disruptor of the region’s security and stability. The secret trips of the US officials to Iraq have certainly roots in their fear from the Iraqis’ rage against Americans’ crisis-making behaviors.

Widespread supports of popular and political groups as well as the country’s religious authorities for Hashd al-Shaabi against the US aggressive policies shows nationwide trust of Iraqis in the resistance forces which in turn shows failure of the White House’s anti-resistance project.  

Iran Russia China joint naval drill in Sea of Oman

Naval forces from Iran, Russia and China started a large-scale maritime exercise in the northern part of Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman on Friday, 27th December 2019.The joint exercise is being viewed by some analysts as a show of power and solidarity between Iran, China and Russia. The exercise, named “Marine Security Belt”, will last for four days and cover 17,000 square kilometers and consist of "various tactical exercises"

Earlier, speaking at a news conference on Wednesday, Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi said it was important and vital that security should be established in Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman. Indian Ocean and Sea of Oman are among the world's key trade routes and many countries commute in the (two) regions and therefore establishing security there is important and vital, said Shekarchi.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Friday that the joint military exercises show that Iran and its partners are committed to secure vital waterways. “Our joint military drills in Oman Sea/Indian Ocean with Russian and Chinese partners make clear our broader commitment to secure vital waterways,” Zarif added. Iran has been insisting that it is ready to work with its neighbors on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf to secure maritime trade in the region based on the Hormuz peace initiative. “Iran has long stated its readiness to work with its neighbors to secure the Persian Gulf.

Since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, it is the first time that the country has staged such a large-scale drill participated with two huge naval powers in the world. Certainly those countries share security, economic, political, and defense interests and try to restore collective security in the region. Reinvigoration of international maritime trade, countering piracy, exchange of information and experiences in various fields including maritime rescue and relief are among the main objectives of the drill.

Rear Admiral Tahani said peace, friendship and sustainable security under collective unity and cooperation are the main messages of the current naval drill. The message of this exercise is peace, friendship and lasting security through cooperation and unity … and its effect will be to show that Iran cannot be isolated.

China has sent a guided-missile destroyer to the four-day drills, which it called a "normal military exchange" between the three armed forces. It is not necessarily connected with the regional situation. China has close diplomatic, trade and energy ties with Iran, which has friendly ties with Russia.

Russia had sent three ships from its Baltic Fleet - a frigate, a tanker, and a rescue tug boat - to take part in the drills. It is believed that Russia is participating for the first time in such drills, being held in such a format.

The drills are being held at a time that the United States is resorting to every ploy to pressure Iran and isolate it in the world.  It sends a clear signal to the United States that the Iran issue should be addressed through negotiations based on the previous deal rather than military actions. The US should stop fanning the flames.

Certain quarters say that the drill was in response to recent US maneuvers with its regional ally Saudi Arabia. The trilateral drills are the first of its kind and being held at a time when Iran is facing unprecedented sanctions from the US. The joint drills are likely to be perceived as provocative by Washington. 

Divided Kuala Lumpur Summit

Contrary to the expectations of many Pakistanis, Prime Minister Imran Khan opted not to attend Kuala Lumpur Summit. The overwhelming perception is that that Khan decided to stay away from the Summit under the pressure of Saudi Arabia. It is no secret that the Kingdom has been extending help to the incumbent government to avert the economic crisis, ever since Khan came into power.

Reportedly, Khan had telephoned his Malaysian counterpart Mahathir bin Mohammad to express his regrets for not being able to attend the summit. He also conveyed the same to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who was also one of the driving forces behind the event.

It is worth noting that Pakistan was one of the first countries with whom Mahathir shared his plans for holding the summit, when he met Khan along with Erdogan on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York in September. Khan formally conveyed his acceptance of the invitation for attending the summit when deputy Foreign Minister of Malaysia called on him in Islamabad on 29th November.

Prior to the commencement of Summit, a statement issued by Malaysian Prime Minister’s Office saying, “Dr. Mahathir appreciates Prime Minister Imran Khan’s call to inform of his inability to attend the summit where the Pakistani leader was expected to speak and share his thoughts on the state of affairs of the Islamic world.”

There is a dire need to read the explanation put forward by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. He confirmed that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had concerns about the Kuala Lumpur Summit. They were worried that the event could cause fragmentation of Ummah and lead to setting up of another organization parallel to the existing Saudi-dominated Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

It is on record that prior to the commencement of Summit, Mahathir told reporters in Kuala Lumpur that Saudi King; Salman bin Abdul Aziz was averse to the Summit discussing issues facing the Muslims. Saudi King was of the view that the OIC should continue as the platform for discussing such matters.

In view of the reservations about the event, Qureshi said, it was decided that Pakistan would first attempt to bridge the gap between Riyadh and Kuala Lumpur and if that did not work there would be no participation in the Summit.

Foreign minister explained that Pakistan did attempt to patch up the differences and succeeded not only in getting invites for Saudis and Emiratis, but also convinced Mahathir to personally visit Riyadh and directly invite King Salman. Mahathir’s visit could not be scheduled because the dates proposed by Riyadh were not convenient for him to undertake the trip.

He also informed that Khan visited Saudi Arabia in an attempt to bringing Saudi Arabia and Malaysia closer, and not for getting a permission to attend the summit. Qureshi was of the view that by staying back, Pakistan had underscored its neutrality on the issue and conveyed that it was not inclined towards one side or the other.

According to media reports from the Malaysian capital, Mahathir and King Salman held a video conference to discuss Saudi reservations even after Pakistan had officially pulled out, but no common grounds could be found.

It was anticipated that two of the world's most outspoken leaders, Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan would be giving their views during the four-day summit. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamid Al-Thani, two countries having tense relations with Saudi Arabia, were invited to attend the Summit.

Saudi Arabia was of the opinion that Summit was the wrong forum to discuss matters of importance to the world's 1.75 billion Muslims.  Saudi King Salman believed that such issues should be discussed through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

However, some analysts suspected the Kingdom feared being diplomatically isolated by regional rivals Iran, Qatar and Turkey. A quote of James Dorsey, a senior fellow at S Rajaratnam School of International Studies and Middle East Institute in Singapore just can’t be overlooked.

He said, “The issue is that you've got blocs. “You've got a Saudi-UAE bloc, Turkey-Qatari bloc, and Pakistan in the middle trying to hedge their bets.”

Defending the summit, Mahathir's office issued a statement saying there was no intention to create a “new bloc as alluded to by some of its critics”.

“In addition, the Summit is not a platform to discuss religion or religious affairs but specifically to address the state of affairs of the Muslim Ummah,” it said.

However, one just can’t ignore what Mahatir had told Reuters. He had expressed frustration with the OIC's inability to forge a united front and act decisively.

United States having inflicted hunger around the world faces the same fate

In July of 2013, Rose Aguilar wrote a wonderful article for al-Jazeera, discussing the dire hunger crisis prevailing in the United States. In her article, she brought back a memory of something people had long forgotten, an event that so outraged the American public that the government was temporarily forced to respond with more humane policies. That event was a 1968 CBS special hour-long documentary called Hunger in America, in which viewers literally watched a hospitalized child die of starvation. The then president, Nixon responded because the public outrage left him no choice, but Reagan quickly dismantled those improvements.

When Reagan came to power in 1980, there were 200 food banks in the US; today there are more than 40,000, all overwhelmed with demand and forced to ration their dispersals. Before 1980, one out of every 50 Americans was dependent on food stamps. Today, it is one out of four. Before Reagan, there were 10 million hungry Americans; today there are more than 50 million and the number is increasing with the passage of time.

A substantial part of the Great Transformation included not only tax cuts and other benefits for the wealthy, but a simultaneous massive reduction in budgets for social programs – in spite of the fact that Reagan and the secret government were creating the conditions that would desperately require those same social programs.
That 50 million hungry Americans today includes the 25% of all children in the US who go to sleep hungry every night. About 25% of the American population today cannot buy sufficient food to remain healthy, with most of these being hungry for at least three months during each year. It is so bad that many college students have resorted to what is called “dumpster-diving” – looking in garbage bins for edible food.

According to a WFP and FAO investigation, food shortages and food insecurity deteriorate in areas affected by conflict. The most critical situation is recorded in Yemen, plagued by wars and epidemics. Syria and Lebanon are also of concern. Food insecurity and famine in conflict-affected countries, especially in the Middle East, continue to worsen in the face of growing problems in the delivery and distribution of aid to the population.

The latest report prepared by the UN agencies focuses on food insecurity in 16 countries in the world: Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon (Syrian refugees), Liberia, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, in addition to the Lake Chad Basin. The joint FAP-WFP survey shows that in over half of these nations, a quarter or more of the population live in crisis situations or in levels of emergency regarding hunger.

Economically destroyed, socially unstable and now hungry, Venezuela is undergoing turbulent times. Known as “Saudi Arabia” of South America, today Venezuela more closely resembles Syria. Economically destroyed and socially unstable, the country is now fighting an ever more alarming specter hunger. In the slum of Petare in the metropolitan area of the capital, Caracas, refrigerators remain empty, supermarket queues grow longer and the necessity of procuring something to eat drives young people to violence. 

Many come together in armed gangs, plunder houses and shops, rob food from passersby and are paid in foodstuffs. Unsustainable inflation has caused prices to double week after week; today, nine out of 10 Venezuelans do not feel they have the sufficient resources to buy food. For some time now the government has been trying to remedy ‘Clap plan’, which distributes food to civilians. But this does not seem to be enough and hunger is now one of the greatest threats to Venezuela’s fragile national security.

Turmoil in China and Iran

From Hong Kong to Tehran to Buenos Aires, the world seems in turmoil. A question is getting louder, what is triggering global unrest. There is so much unrest throughout the world at any point that it would appear to be merely the normal chaos. However, a point is very clear reasons for turmoil are unique for each country and often multiple. China and Iran are very different places, each with its own geopolitical circumstances.

One of the conspiracy theories suggests single element that is common to all countries, economic chaos of 2008 that originated from the United States. More than a decade ago the international economic system got a jolt and the turmoil continues to date. The weakness in the global economy is magnified by the unsolved problems lingering since 2008. It is also evident that economic problems have transformed into political ones. Add to this the shift in US strategy, away from military interventions to economic confrontations. The shift in US strategy is affecting the global economic system in general abut China and Iran in particular.

Let the analysis begin with riots in Hong Kong. In 2008, China was a powerful exporter, but also dependent on exports for social stability. The financial collapse created a profound crisis. An economy built on efficient exporting staggers when its customers are unable to buy its goods. The export crisis compounded the financial crisis, as cash flow from exports contracted. This followed a series of purges designed officially to weed out corruption and unofficially to find scapegoats for China’s problems and to intimidate potential opposition. Chinese government promising prosperity started opting austerity. The purges were the beginning of a systematic repression in China that sought to retain Chinese economic dynamism without an equivalent political dynamism.

Things got worse when the United States, China’s biggest customer, imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese goods and demanded access to China’s markets. There was also an implied demand for political concessions. The pressure from the United States increased the pressure still present from 2008. It in turn intensified suppression. Chinese insecurity compelled the Communist Party to seek increased control over Hong Kong, with an extradition law that would permit China to extract Hong Kong citizens. This triggered the worst instability in Hong Kong.

Let us move from China to Iran, the two countries having no similarities. The 2008 crisis triggered a slowdown in consumption and therefore in production. In the long run, this inevitably caused major declines in the prices of commodities, the most important being crude oil. Iran continued to export despite economic sanctions. However, low oil prices weighed on it, causing pressure on the economy, and eventually restlessness in the society. As with China, the US imposed economic penalties on Iran for reasons that have little to do with the economy. Regardless, the effect of the global shift in oil pricing, coupled with intense economic pressure from the US, over the time generated intense unrest and government repression.

There has been unrest in countries in which the US has strategic interest. Lebanon, Argentina, Chile and others all went into crisis for idiosyncratic reasons – including an emerging global economic slowdown. In all these countries, there are political problems that do not derive from 2008 economic crisis but certainly by US pressure. In some, such as Lebanon, there are economic problems that are mostly caused by external forces.

According to some analysts, while no general theory of unrest seems plausible, a special theory gets credential. The countries most dependent on either industrial exports or the sale of industrial commodities were harmed the most, though some have recovered. The addition of US economic pressure as a tool of foreign policy has compounded this problem, generating unrest. The US pressure would not have been nearly as effective without 2008. It is now triggering internal political consequences that are threatening the ability of regimes to cope.

Iran faces a difficult time and the stakes are high, from potential war with the United States to reversal of its gains across the Middle East to future of its revolutionary state. It is a defining moment for Tehran – perhaps the most critical since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that has been prompted by the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions. On top of all protests in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon have also charged the atmosphere.

What’s clear is that the growing scale of the challenge makes it difficult for Iran to pursue its earlier approach toward mounting US pressure. It is also not clear how Tehran will respond to this historic test with more military escalation, diplomatic compromise – or a combination of both.

Diplomats in the Middle East argue that the United States has put itself in a good position to shape that choice. They argue Washington could take advantage of Iran’s increased difficulties by working more closely with European and Mideast allies to frame an offer that would ease sanctions but put in place a process that would block Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon and end its foreign policy of regional meddling.

However, that sounds like wishful thinking in the world of Washington’s distractions, transatlantic distrust and Iranian outrage. Trump administration officials are sanguine, arguing that at the very least the sanctions have cut deeply into the resources Iran can invest in its proxies. Protests at home and abroad are usefully soaking up regime energies.