As part of the incendiary and escalating crisis surrounding the
assassination of Qassem Soleimani, there has come an explanation of why
the Iranian commander was actually in Baghdad when he was targeted by a
US missile strike.
Iraq’s prime minister revealed that he was
due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss moves being made to
ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – the
crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.
Adil
Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: “I was supposed to meet him in the morning
the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in
response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran.” The
prime minister also disclosed that Donald Trump had called him to ask
him to mediate following the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad.
According to Iraqi officials contact was made with a number of militias
as well as figures in Tehran. The siege of the embassy was lifted and
the US president personally thanked Abdul-Mahdi for his help.
There
was nothing to suggest to the Iraqis that it was unsafe for Soleimani
to travel to Baghdad – quite the contrary. This suggests that Trump
helped lure the Iranian commander to a place where he could be killed.
It is possible that the president was unaware of the crucial role that
Soleimani was playing in the attempted rapprochement with the Saudis. Or
that he knew but did not care.One may even say that it
is not in the interest of a president who puts so much emphasis on
American arms exports, and whose first official trip after coming to
office was a weapons-selling trip to Saudi Arabia – during which he
railed against Iran – to have peace break out between the Iranians and
the kingdom. But that would be far too cynical a thought.
Abdul-Mahdi
spoke of his disappointment that while Trump was expressing his
gratitude over the mediation, he was also simultaneously planning an
attack on Soleimani. That attack took place not long after the telephone
call from the president.
There is also the possibility that the
US military planners knew nothing about the conversations between Trump
and Abdul-Mahdi, and took out Soleimani when the opportunity presented
itself.There may be credence to this, if one follows the
narrative which is emerging from defence and intelligence officials in
Washington: that the assassination option presented to Trump was bound
to be refused, as it had been by his predecessors in the White House.
And that there was a desperate scramble to track down Soleimani when,
much to their shock, Trump ordered the hit.What does the Iran crisis mean for Trump’s impeachment?
The
existence of the talks between the Saudi and the Iranians and, more
importantly, the threat of impending violence, has meant reaction in
Riyadh at the killing has been markedly muted.
Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman, not a stranger to sabre rattling, has sent his
younger brother, deputy defence minister Khalid bin Salman, to
Washington to urge restraint.
The very real risk of the region
becoming a arena for conflict has led to rare cooperation in the
stand-off between the Saudi-led Gulf block and Qatar, whose foreign
minister was dispatched to Tehran with a similar appeal for calm.
In
Tehran, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani met with Iranian president
Hassan Rouhani to discuss “measures to maintain the security and
stability of the region,” the state-run Qatar News Agency reported.
While in the UAE the foreign minister, Anwar Gargash, called for
“rational engagement”, tweeting: “wisdom and balance must prevail.”
As
well as being in danger of getting caught in the crossfire of a war
between the US and Iran, the Arab states in the region are vulnerable to
Tehran’s allied militias – in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. There is
concern whether the US, after unleashing a wave of missiles, would do
anything when retribution is taken on its partner countries.
The
Saudis learned only too clearly last summer that one cannot always
depend on American commitment, when drone and missile attacks on
oil-processing facilities in the kingdom halved oil production. Trump
directly blamed Iran for the attacks but there was no American military
response, just as there has not been to the many attacks on the kingdom
from the Houthis in Yemen.
In the light of all this Khalid
al-Dakhil, a Saudi political sociologist, pointed out: “Saudi Arabia and
all the Gulf countries are just quiet. They don’t want to antagonise
the Iranians, because the situation in the region is so delicate, so
divided, so sensitive, that you don’t want to stir it up further.”
Robert
Emerson, a British security analyst, said that it was clear why caution
was prevailing. “You don’t know whether Trump will just light the blue
touchpaper and then just disappear,” he said. “The Arab states are right
to be wary. The talk about Iran and Saudi negotiations is intriguing,
further details should be emerging.’’
The Trump administration
continues to insist that Soleimani was killed because he was about to
launch an imminent terror campaign, without providing any evidence for
the assertion. There is increasing scepticism about the claim and the
questions are not going to go away. There are too many memories of
Saddam Hussein and his non-existent WMD arsenal. The repercussions from
the assassination in Baghdad will continue for a very long time.
0 Comments