ArabDigest.org: Tilting to war: the assassination of Suleimani

Tilting to war: the assassination of Suleimani Summary: The assassination of the Iranian Quds Force general Qassem Suleimani dramatically alters the political landscape of the Middle East. How Iran responds will determine if the region is marching toward a major war. On 24 December we wrote: “Tensions with Iran reached a high water mark after attacks on oil tankers and Saudi Aramco but have ebbed since. Still the possibility of war cannot be completely discounted.” It is said that a week is a long time in politics. This is even more true when it comes to evaluating tensions in the Middle East.  On 27 December a US military contractor was killed in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base near the city of Kirkuk. The Pentagon said the attack was carried out by Keta’ib Hezbollah, a member of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) of Iraqi Shia militias heavily supported by Iran. The American response was swift with five air strikes on Keta’ib Hezbollah bases in Iraq and Syria coming on 29 December. At least 25 militia fighters were killed in the raids. In a rapidly escalating game of tit for tat PMF supporters attacked the US embassy in Baghdad, besieging it for nearly 48 hours before they were called off on 1 January. Less than 24 hours later the US assassinated General Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force and arguably the most powerful Iranian after only the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini. Also killed, in what was reported as a lethal drone attack at Baghdad’s International Airport, was the leader of Keta’ib Hezbollah, Abu Mahdi Al Muhandis.

Ayatollah Khamenei alongside Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and the late commander Qassem Suleimani In barely a week, then, a situation which was relatively stable had rapidly evolved into a scenario where the possibility of war drastically and suddenly moved from possible toward likely and probable. For their part the Iranians are promising to wreak vengeance on the United States for the assassination while US president Donald Trump is claiming just cause, tweeting  with predictable excess that Suleimani had “killed or wounded thousands of Americans” and was “directly or indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people.”
America’s allies in the region, most notably Saudi Arabia and Israel would appear to be most at risk from Iranian retaliation.  That being the case, one wonders to what extent, if any, Donald Trump weighed up the danger he was putting the Saudis and the Israelis in when he decided, without congressional oversight, to ratchet up the stakes to such a level by ordering the killing of Suleimani. The key to what happens next will be how the Iranians respond. They may decide to carry out a damaging attack on Saudi Aramco, as happened in September or attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers. They could choose to use Hezbollah rockets based in Lebanon against Israel or use the Houthis to hurl rockets from inside Yemen at multiple targets in Saudi Arabia. Or they could decide, for the time being, to do nothing. If that were to be the case the region and the world would breathe a collective sigh of relief.
What Teheran is weighing up is the strategy that will best protect the gains the Iranians have achieved over several years thanks largely to the tactics of Suleimani. He effectively deployed a form of asymmetrical warfare that saved Iran’s Syrian ally Bashir Al Assad, dictated much of the military, economic and political direction of neighbouring Iraq and tied up the Saudis in an unwinnable war in Yemen. Retaliation that provokes a significant military response from the Israelis will likely lead to a major war breaking out, something the Iranians cannot win and that will see them lose all the gains they have secured. The same is true if they choose to attack an American military base or other American diplomatic or business targets.
Even a more calibrated approach, missile attacks on Saudi Aramco installations for instance, could still lead to an escalating war situation, given how central Aramco is to the ambitions of the Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Missiles fired by the Houthis into Saudi Arabia would perhaps make a point but there is no guarantee of that or even that the Houthis, who are fiercely independent, would simply go along with Teheran given what would be the likely consequences for them. A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is something the Americans have already shown they will not tolerate.  However, Donald Trump is in an election year and the last thing he will want to do is to draw America into another Middle East war. A temporary blockade of the strait by the Iranians would allow for plenty of threats, bluster and sabre rattling on both sides without a war breaking out. Perhaps that is the strategy that the Iranians will choose.  If they choose otherwise, it is very hard to see how we are not headed toward a war, the outcome of which is difficult if not impossible to foretell.