A THREAD ON IRAN
So Trump, guided by his advisors, ordered a strike that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. It was not something that the President would have done alone. He probably didn’t know who Soleimani was before the operation was proposed.
1/
So Trump, guided by his advisors, ordered a strike that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. It was not something that the President would have done alone. He probably didn’t know who Soleimani was before the operation was proposed.
1/
Commentators have pointed out that ordering a hit against a foreign national doesn't plays well when the country responsible is meant to be a champion of the rules based international order. It’s something that Putin or other hardline regimes do, but not the “good guys.”
2/
2/
Can such acts ever be justified? Is it the age-old moral conundrum: killing one person to save the lives of others? Did we ever used to get such decisions right and have we now lost our moral compass? Or is it just harder to hide behind a cloak of plausible deniability?
3/
3/
In trying to justify foreign policy interventions, we need to have very clear long-term strategic, political and military goals. We not only have to ask whether our objectives are achievable and affordable, but also whether they compromise our values and integrity.
4/
4/
We have always sought to maintain the moral high ground. It’s why we thought it was right to remove Iraqi forces after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. It’s why we deployed forces to Kosovo to prevent ethnic cleansing and to Somalia to stop a human catastrophe unfolding.
5/
5/
"We" means democratic countries ruled by governments elected by the people. "We" means people who try to be the "good guys," even when we don't always make the best decisions. "We" means people who believe in the many freedoms we take for granted.
6/
6/
Whenever we got involved, we used to wonder how far we should go. We questioned our involvement. It was always a delicate balancing act of moral judgement. After 9/11 happened, America had the sympathy of the world and rightly so.
7/
7/
America felt justified in rooting-out Al Qaeda. But the Gobal War on Terror was a new kind of war. It was about defeating non-state actors operating at scale and with reach. It was about intelligence and surveillance, not invading countries. It was a war of shadows.
8/
8/
Right at the point we held the moral high ground, we inexplicably decided to invade Iraq & Afghanistan. We had no plan for what came after Saddam Hussein. In trying to bring freedom and democracy, we left the people worse off than they had been before. We destroyed Iraq. Why?
9/
9/
Both conflicts created an almighty mess. They fomented a rage and hatred against the West and our values. We stirred-up an Islamic movement committed to our destruction. We created a second Vietnam. We fought a discretionary war we couldn't win. How could we get it so wrong?
10/
10/
To make matters worse, we ended-up fighting two wars with one hand tied behind our back. Attempts to bring peace and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan were frustrated by proxies (hidden enemies) who were supporting the terrorist organisations we were trying to defeat.
11/
11/
The hidden enemy was the Iranian regime. It sponsored terrorism. It continues to provide arms and safe haven to our enemies. It has been frustrating US efforts to bring peace and stability to the Middle East for decades. It is a country that hates us.
12/
12/
The Iranian regime has been fighting a proxy war against the USA and UK ever since the Shah was deposed in 1979 and a religious extremist government took control. Note that the problem here is not the people, but a brutal, dictatorial regime. The Iranian people are victims.
13/
13/
The Iranian regime has hated the West for more than 40 years. It has done everything possible to thwart our efforts to build peace and stability in the Middle East. Its constant activities below the threshold of conflict have made things worse and denied us a natural exit.
14/
14/
Iran's regime hasn't been playing by the rules. Finally, the USA felt it could no longer ignore their attempts to destabilise the region. So, it decided to ignore the rules too. This is a dangerous game. Play it for long enough and you become no different to your enemies.
15/
15/
Countries used to declare war through overt acts of aggression that could not be interpreted as anything else. Things like invading a country or bombing military targets. Today, countries don't declare war at all. There is a grey zone between competition and conflict.
16/
16/
Actions below the threshold of conflict are like someone constantly poking you with a finger until one day you turn around and punch them in the face. Iran's proxy actions have been just like this. Ultimately, America said enough and punched.
17/
17/
So the question is what is going to happen next? Iran's leaders can either take it on the chin, do nothing and then gradually start to ratchet-up tensions again when a suitable amount of time has passed. Or they can respond with an open act of aggression against the USA.
18/
18/
What we're seeing in the Middle East is how actions below the threshold can lead to unintended escalation. Iran didn't think Soleimani's actions would lead to a US strike. But surely if Iran responds and America attacks again, things will only get worse?
19/
19/
The point of this thread is not to condone or criticise America's actions, but to observe the fact that the rules of conflict have changed. The challenge we face is how to respond to grey zone tactics that seek to compromise the very values we wish to protect.
END/
END/
