Measured Response

Initially, Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo told reporters that if a major retaliatory strike against Iran were required – because of a possible major Iranian response to the killing of their General Qassim Soleimani – the United States would not target any cultural or religious sites. He stated on ABC’s This Week that America would “behave lawfully” and “behave inside the system.” But he was quickly contradicted by Trump himself, who stated that Iran was not entitled to the niceties of international law and that cultural targets were on the table.

That response drew some immediate negative reaction, even from some of Trump principal supporters, like the UK Prime Minister. “Boris Johnson has warned Donald Trump that any attempt to target Iranian cultural sites would be a breach of international law… [But] Trump on Monday [1/6] repeated his threat to target Iranian cultural sites, after suggesting over the weekend that the US could hit the sites ‘very fast and very hard.’

“‘They're allowed to kill our people. They're allowed to torture and maim our people. They're allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we're not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn't work that way,’ Trump told reporters.” Business Insider, January 6^th.

“The United States is a signatory to a 1954 international agreement to protect cultural property in armed conflict. Violating it with attacks on Iran’s historical sites would represent a huge turnabout. The United States was among the harshest critics of the Islamic State’s destruction of antiquities in Mosul, Iraq, and Palmyra, Syria, as well as the Taliban’s obliteration of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.

“‘The U.S. has taken a leadership role in the protection of antiquities from destruction and illicit trade, particularly in the Middle East,’ said Deborah Lehr, the chairwoman and founder of the Washington-based Antiquities Coalition. ‘It would be a shame to see that global good will disappear by the intentional targeting and the destruction of cultural sites.’

“The International Criminal Court convicted a Qaeda-linked extremist of war crimes in 2016 for destroying historic and religious artifacts in Mali. But the United States is not a party to the court, which is based in The Hague, the Netherlands.

“In 2018, the Trump administration withdrew the United States from UNESCO, the cultural organization of the United Nations that is known to travelers for its list of World Heritage sites.

“Beyond official condemnation from across the world, other signatories to the 1954 convention could refuse to be enlisted by the United States for military actions against Iran, Mr. Anderson said. That could include withholding intelligence or refusing to let American forces prepare for attacks on Iranian interests from bases in allied nations.” New York Times, January 6^th. Apparently, by January 7^th, Trump’s advisors finally convinced the President that intentionally taking out cultural sites was flatly and clearly illegal. Trump relented, saying if it came to risks to Iran’s cultural icons, he would pursue a gentler course.

While receiving a mild show of support from some European heads of state plus a wild endorsement from Israel, increasingly, most allies (except Israel) were sending a message to the President that he is pretty much isolated in his decision. Unless the other NATO states buy into Trump’s assertion that America was attacked and his mission to eliminate Soleimani was purely defensive – which is unlikely – there may be no treaty basis for NATO to join the United States if there were to be a full-on war with Iran. 

Indeed, the overwhelming cry was for both parties to stand down. “European leaders issued a statement calling for both the US and Iran to show ‘the utmost restraint and responsibility.’… ‘There is now an urgent need for de-escalation,’ [Boris] Johnson, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron said in a joint statement on Sunday [1/5] evening… ‘We call on all parties to exercise utmost restraint and responsibility. The current cycle of violence in Iraq must be stopped.’

“The statement came after the UK called on Trump to step back from all-out war with Iran… The foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, said on Friday [1/3] that conflict with Iran ‘is in none of our interests’ and urged ‘all parties to de-escalate.’… The crisis has strained relations between the two countries. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday accused the UK and other European allies of ‘not being helpful,’ over the ongoing crisis.” Business Insider. And exactly why would they want to help? Indeed, if a war with Iran resulted in a mining of the Strait of Hormuz, the cost of oil in Europe, which unlike the US does not have its own reserves, would skyrocket. 

Reactions from the throngs all across Iran were greater than even authorities in Tehran had expected. Dozens were even stampeded to death at a massive outpouring at a funeral event. One unnamed Shiite cleric also went so far as to promise $80 million to anyone able to kill Trump. Further, although not committing to a fully renewed nuclear weapons program, Iran also announced that it was abrogating its commitment to the six-party UN nuclear arms accord (from which Trump pulled the US in 2018). Reactions in neighboring Iraq were equally harsh.

As the Iraqi Parliament voted to begin the process of disinviting the US presence within their nation, expressing outrage against a unilateral decision by the United States to bomb Baghdad International Airport without any Iraqi consent to kill the Iranian general, Trump responded that if they made that decision, he would instantly impose the most dramatic sanctions of his presidency against them unless Iraq paid all of the US’ unrecouped costs in the Iraqi war. Nevertheless, 60% Shiite majority Iraq was rapidly gravitating to cut US ties in favor of bolstering their already close relationship with 90%+ Shiite majority Iran. Vladimir Putin must be salivating, ready to step in and supply Iraq with whatever the United States withholds.

Strategists in the United States are bracing for what they believe will be an unavoidable violent military response from Iran. They all know it’s coming but are hopeful that it would not be so ultra-destructive so as to mandate the outbreak of total war with the United States. Not surprisingly, Iran is said to be looking carefully at one particularly obvious response. “There’s a unique set of targets Iran is likely eyeing as it contemplates retaliation for the U.S. killing of a top Iranian general in Iraq on Jan. 2: Trump Organization properties in 11 countries outside the United States [all named in the Trump website]…

“On Jan. 5, an Iranian official who advises the country’s president hinted that Iran is, in fact, tracking Trump properties. Hesameddin Ashena, who runs the Iranian president’s research outfit, posted a tweet, without comment, linking to a Forbes web page on Trump’s personal wealth that lists 19 Trump properties, mostly in the United States. The Trump Organization owns those properties. Most of the firm’s international properties are owned by others, with the Trump Organization branding and managing them.

“‘We have ZERO problems with the American people,’ Ashena wrote, in English, in a separate tweet. ‘Our sole problem is Trump. In the event of war, it is he who will bear full responsibility.’” YahooFinance.com, January 6^th. I wonder if Trump’s business insurance has the usual exclusion against coverage for damages due to acts of war. 

Meanwhile, Iran may have already launched (its first) an attack: “Iran state TV says Tehran has launched ‘tens’ of surface-to-surface missiles at Iraq’s Ain Assad air base housing U.S. troops over America’s killing of a top Iranian general… State TV described it early Wednesday [1/8] as Tehran’s revenge operation over the killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani… U.S. forces could not be immediately reached for comment.” Associated Press, January 7^th.

While more Americans support the President’s actions in killing Soleimani than don’t, I suspect his supporters do not fully appreciate the consequences or that there really was nothing new to precipitate this attack. Soleimani was just up to his usual malevolence – same old, same old – but was conveniently out in the open in a vulnerable airport. As noted in my January 5^th blog, Soleimani was immediately replaced by his personally selected and trained deputy commander. Trump was given a host of choices against Iran by his military leaders; he apparently picked the one they had hoped he would not.

              I’m Peter Dekom, and shoot-from-the-hip bravado seldom accomplishes the desired longer-term goal and usually generates some very powerful negative and irretrievable responses.