The United States has killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds military force, as a pre-emptive measure to forestall possible attacks on American interests. President Trump’s national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, has claimed that the strike was “fully authorized” under the ‘2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq Resolution’.
According to O’Brien, “The president exercised America’s clear, inherent right of self-defence that was consistent with his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to defend our national interests and our forces against attacks like those that Soleimani has directed in the past and was plotting now, once again. We caught Qassem Soleimani in the act of planning and plotting to kill Americans in the region”.
And now, following Iran’s reaction of taking revenge in the near future in a tit-for-tat manner, President Trump has come up with yet more stern warnings of a grave nature, immersed in contempt for a militarily and economically weaker country, Iran.
The powers that be in the American system, especially the President and the Pentagon, might be right in claiming that they had ‘authentic, inside information about the dangerous designs of Soleimani against American assets and forces but the dominant perception prevailing in some segments of the global intelligentsia is that it is basically a demonstration of the high and mighty acting without any regard for the universal principles of peaceful co-existence, encouraged and motivated by its immense powers of ‘strike and dictation’. No doubt, Iran is rated as a symbol or an edifice of resistance by the Americans but this identity of symbol of resistance is not a sign of threat to the biggest military power of the world.
How can then the United States’ establishment be right in assessing or declaring Iran as a threat, let alone a cogent threat when it (Iran) does not strictly fit in the definition of a threat on any strategic yardstick, given the fact that Iran does not possess the matching armament and military resources to threaten a global nuclear power which is now issuing repeated warnings of sending ‘beautiful bombs’ in the backdrop of its self-pride of being the best and the biggest. President Donald Trump is on record having claimed, with pride- if not hubris- that “We are the biggest and by far the best in the world and if Iranians retaliated to our attacks that we conducted in self-defence, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way – and without hesitation.”
Is it the intrinsic essence of American establishment that it perceives things exclusively in the security perspective? Doesn’t it make us think that, in essence, the American establishment is afflicted with some kind of insecurity complex in the garb of security? Doesn’t this thinking pattern prevailing in the United States’ decision-making circles (or in the circles deciding war or strikes) stand in sheer conflict with democratic ideals?
After all, what is democracy all about? Democracy is all about tolerance, synthesis and peaceful co-existence not only within the periphery of a state but also across the frontiers in the realm of inter-state relations.
The resultant situation now demands that the Islamic world should not draw conclusions or frame foreign policies in the ‘sectarian-divide perspective’. We should rather stand united as one fraternity following the same faith since it might act as an effective counterpoise against hegemonic mindsets and dictation. However, it does not at all mean that standing united in this manner means intimidating or challenging anyone. Pakistan’s Foreign Office should also handle the things with diplomatic finesse and dexterity, after studying crisis scenarios one by one that may emerge in the times to come. Now is an era of measured, well-thought-out responses particularly when the country is faced with delicate situations all around.
Sheharyar Saif
Lahore
