Trump may benefit from a brief bump in public opinion polls with his hard-core supporters in the aftermath of the assassination of a top Iranian general. But it’s hard to see his latest foray into the treacherous politics of the Middle East as part of any coherent policy to contain Iran’s ambitions in the area.
The president’s action came without consulting Congress or revealing what specific imminent move by Iran made the general a target.
General Soleimani wasn’t a man of peace; he was responsible for running the strategy that used proxy fighters to extend Iran’s influence in the region. These military campaigns increased after Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 agreement that limited Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons.
Iran was living up to the terms of the agreement, according to the international monitors.
The president says his aim is to ensure that Iran doesn’t pursue a nuclear path, but it is difficult to see how his action furthers that goal. As former Secretary of State John Kerry says, it appears to have emboldened the hard-liners in an unreliable regime.
Trump also pledged during his campaign to get the United States out of the endless wars that have cost so much in American blood and treasure. How does the killing of this general further that goal?
Imposing more economic sanctions on Iran was also touted by Trump. But, as Sen. Jack Reed says, there isn’t much left to sanction in Iran’s depleted economy..
The United States does not have a good record in the Middle East, where the country has often acted more as bully than forger of peace. This is particularly true of Iran and neighboring Iraq.
Some history lessons: In the 1950s, US and British intelligence fomented a coup that got rid of the elected government to install the Shah, a despot. Then in the 1970s, as the shah’s regime was crumbling,he was allowed to seek medical treatment in the United States, over the objections of career state department officials. Then-president Jimmy Carter held up the shah’s plan to come to the US for nearly a year.
In a remarkable story published recently in the New York Times, new documents show how David Rockefeller, head of the Chase Manhattan Bank, maneuvered, with the help of Henry Kissinger, behind the scenes to have the shah admitted to the US.
The oil-rich shah was one of the bank’s most profitable customers, so the bank’s brass were avidly doing his bidding. The result: After he flew into the US, the Iranians took Americans hostage.
That allowed the theocratic regime in Iran to consolidate its power. And it began a four-decade battle between Tehran and Washington that boils still.
After the 911 attacks, then-President George W. Bush decided without any concrete evidence of weapons of mass destruction to invade Iraq. Nearly two decades later, The US has spent trillions of dollars, endured the deaths of 4,500 troops and the wounding of tens of thousands more. As Senator Reed points out, Iraq still has no functioning government.
The Iraqi Parliament voted last week –in a move some see as symbolic –to kick US forces out of their country.
Now we have a president who walked away from the nuclear agreement we signed with our allies and appears on the road to another disastrous Middle East war.
Congress is in a tough position. Lawmakers could try to tie Trump’s hands by invoking a War Powers resolution, but the president would veto it.
Mark Stoler is a longtime professor of military and diplomatic history at the University of Vermont. He’s also the editor of the George Marshall papers. Trump’s policies, he says, have given Iran more influence in the region, particularly in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
“I don’t see anything good coming out of this,” Says Stoler. “I hope I’m wrong.”
Scott MacKay’s Commentary can be heard every Monday morning at 6:45 and 8:45 and at 5:44 in the afternoon.
