What will result from the killing of Suleimani? In my opinion, Iraq’s demand for the withdrawal of US troops will grow louder. If those demands are ignored, the US will effectively become an occupying power. I believe Iran will not respond militarily to the killing. Europe, China, Russia and India may remain on the sidelines, benefitting from US isolation. It is widely suspected that Suleimani’s killing has more to do with domestic US politics than a real security threat. There is broad skepticism about Trump’s claim of imminent attacks. Additionally, if Israel attacks Iran, the US is likely to join.
Let’s elaborate:
First, Iraqis are evidently unified in their demand for the US withdrawal of troops[1]. The influence of Iran on Iraq appears to have strengthened. Iranian companies invest in Iraq. They play a significant economic role in various regions of the country[2]. Before, this was a source of resentment for many Iraqis. There were recent popular demonstrations against Iran. Now this all seems to have changed. Iran and Iraq have a common, mortal and historic enemy.
Second, in order to escalate the situation, Trump needs Iran to respond militarily[3]. That may not happen. The Iranians know they are no match against US forces. They can, however, undertake actions that would directly hurt US geopolitical interests, or those of its allies. I don’t believe Teheran will undertake terrorist actions against civilians, although in the future, terrorist attacks may be attributed to Iran. Iran would not benefit from killing civilians.
The official US policy is to link Iran to terrorism although is far from being proven. Terrorism is associated mostly with Sunni extremists, not the Iranian state[4]. Iran has very reactionary, and in some cases, medieval policies, but there is no evidence of its participation in terrorist actions, especially outside of the Middle East. Most accusations of terrorism against Iran refer to actions carried out by guerrilla forces in the region’s areas of conflict. Iran does provide military support to some regional governments and movements. Iranian support to Bashar al-Assad in Syria or Shiite minorities in Yemen and other places has been labeled as terrorist. The actions of Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and even the US government there in many cases, have also been considered equally terrorist. That participation has even been strongly objected to by some members of Congress due to the blatant disregard for civilian life. The only serious accusations against Iran outside of the region that I could find were the terrorist attacks in Buenos Aires. These occurred at the Israeli Embassy and The Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA). They took place in the 90s when Al Qaeda undertook similar attacks in other parts of the world against USA such as the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The accusations against Iran in Argentina have not been proven[5]. It must be mentioned that Iran is a mortal enemy of Al Qaeda and played a crucial, perhaps decisive role, in the elimination of ISSIS. Iran facilitated Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11[6].
Third, no other important players have supported the US in this killing. Europe remains skeptical at best[7]. Russia and China are opposed to the killing[8]. They likely see potential advantages for their national interests. India, historically tied to Iran, is concerned[9] about regional implications. The notion that Suleimani’s killing prevented imminent attacks is a difficult sell. After the fiasco of “weapons of mass destruction,” used to justify the war in Iraq, US credibility in those matters seriously diminished. [10]
Fourth, it’s widely suspected that the attack is an attempt to manipulate and distract US public opinion and to change the national political dialogue. This is taking place in an election year and during an impeachment process. There is also the possibility of a mild economic recession sometime this year. Trump’s chances for re-election are being compromised by these factors. Although there are varying views on the topic, military actions tend to benefit the sitting President, at least for a while[11].
==========
[1] “Iraqis Lawmakers call to expell US troops”, New York Times, January 5, 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/05/world/middleeast/iran-general-soleimani-iraq.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
[2] “Irán Works to Keep Iraq Open for Business”, The Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2019 https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-works-to-keep-iraq-open-for-business-11547567451
[3] “Trump warns the US has targeted 52 sites in Iran”, CNN January 5, 2020
[4] “The Growing Obsession with Linking Iran to Terrorism. Iran has not posed a serious terror threat to the United States since the 1980s. Sunni terrorism, on the other hand, has”, Jefferson Morley, The New Republic, April 10, 2019 https://newrepublic.com/article/153537/growing-obsession-linking-iran-terrorism
[5] “Ponen en duda las pruebas contra Iran en el caso AMIA”, El Litoral, 4 de Enero de 2020 https://www.ellitoral.com/index.php/id_um/220521-ponen-en-duda-las-pruebas-contra-iran-en-el-caso-amia-ex-agentes-del-fbi-y-la-cia-nacionales.html
[6] “US-Iran Engagement Through Afghanistan” Middle East Policy Council, Volume XVII, Spring, Number 1 https://mepc.org/us-iran-engagement-through-afghanistan
[7] “Pompeo: Europe response to Suleimani killing not helpful enough”, The Guardian, January 4, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/mike-pompeo-european-response-to-suleimani-killing
[8]France, Russia and China condemns the slaying of Suleimani as a destabilizing act”, The Times of Israel, January 3, 2020 https://www.timesofisrael.com/france-russia-and-china-condemn-slaying-of-soleimani-as-a-destabilizing-act/
[9] “India reaction to the Killing of Iranian Commander Qassem Suleimani”, Tanvi Madam, The Brooking, January 3, 2020 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/01/03/indias-reaction-to-the-killing-of-iranian-commander-qassem-soleimani/
[10] “Why lying about imminent attack would matter”, The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin, January 5, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/05/why-lying-about-an-imminent-attack-matters/
[11] “Attacking Iran will not helped Trump win re-election”, Michael Tesler, The Washington Post, January 4, 2020 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/04/attacking-iran-wont-help-trump-win-reelection-heres-why/