Trump’s reckless gamble

World currencies felt the jitters raiding on the US dollar, and both events to the disadvantage of the United States in the long run. It was a dastardly immoral act, regardless of the provocation. All along, Trump’s systematic pressure, intended to have Iran seek negotiation on bended knee, had instead caused Iran to opt for a military response using its proxies in the region to attack vulnerable western assets and military targets.

What I find disheartening  is that President Donald Trump “inherited an Iran, made more manageable by President Barak Obama”, and blew it. Iran had accepted a nuclear deal with America and was drifting towards a rapprochement with its avowed enemies the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of Europe all in the interest of world peace.

But the hate of Obama and everything associated with his African-American predecessor obviously blinded Donald Trump to all the monumental gains inherent in the nuclear deal secured at such painstaking effort. It was surprising that even after Trump shredded the nuclear deal, Iran sustained it for up to 12 months making open bids to salvage it. It tried hard to retain its trade partners that had resumed business with Iran since Obama lifted the sanctions and managed to keep France, Germany, China, and Russia in partnerships, independent of the US.

But Trump would not let this be and one by one, international companies fearing severe losses from the US sanctions departed Iran. Iran had taken advantage of the lifting of sanctions to procure economic repositioning needs like jumbo jets, vehicles and industrial machinery and as well secure huge exports of its gold, caviar, carpets and agricultural produce among others. All was lost to Trump’s effective strangulation.

It is the reversal of the nuclear deal and the re-imposition of biting economic sanctions that served to drive Iran back to the trenches of resistance to America and the resort to military acts that escalated the tensions. In September two Saudi Aramco oil assets were attacked severely in sophisticated stealth drone fashion and without batting an eyelid, Saudi Arabia and the US accused Iran of the act.

Earlier in May, four commercial ships belonging to Saudi Arabia, Norway, and the UAE were attacked off the coast of Fujairah. Saudi Arabia blamed Iran for the act. Then the Houthis a known Iranian proxy in Yemen, fired a rocket that landed in the US Embassy in Baghdad. Naturally, Iran was fingered. In June, two tankers belonging to Japan and Norway were attacked in the Gulf of Oman and just a week later Iran brought down a sophisticated US military drone. In July, to retaliate the seizure by the British of a super tanker loaded with Iranian oil, Iran also seized a British tanker, the Stena Impero, that was negotiating passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile Iran had resumed its nuclear program viciously and by November, was enriching uranium well above sanction limits and fueling centrifuges – a move towards the Netanyahu marked red line.

As the game of military attacks in reaction to biting sanctions continued, a US contractor was killed and several US marines injured when a rocket struck an Iraqi military base in Kirkuk. Of course regardless of which proxy fired the rocket, the US blamed Iran even as it carried out air attacks on militia sites across the region.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was when on New Year’s eve, Iran backed protesters attempted to break into the well fortified compound of the US Embassy in Baghdad. Then just a day after US Defense Secretary Mark Esper revealed that Iran was planning more attacks, General Qassem Soleimani was killed as he left the airport in a convoy.

Many have suggested that the tensions in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East signal a drift to World War III. Others discountenance the fear pointing out that Iran possesses no such military muscle as to take on the United States of America despite the belief that the threat of retaliation for the killing of Soleimani would be carried out in an equally dramatic fashion. Iran is hemmed in by American Military bases, but its counter strategy believably anchored by Soleimani has been the funding and deployment of proxies across the region, who could effectively target American interests and attack with devastating effect.

Is Trump wise or foolish in his projection in this killing? Are we convinced that the killing of Iran’s General Souleimani was worth the gamble? America lied it’s way into Iraq and killed Sadam Husein. Who suffered the most from this regime change? The war cost America trillions of dollars, and hundreds of dead marines. The US economy went into a recession. America lied it’s way into Libya and killed Muammar Gaddafi. Who suffered for this the most? Does the US not count the real cost of its abuse of power? Is it worth the human material and financial cost to America? Is world peace better guaranteed by a troubled Middle East? Is the State of Israel made any more secure by this deadly divide and rule in the Arab world?

When I reflect on all these deeply, I come to the conclusion that America like all bullies is only clever by half. If Trump’s ploy is to achieve the political effect Obama derived from the killing of Osama bin Laden, the world instead sees the killing of Qassem Soleimani as grossly immoral and totally unnecessary. It could cost Trump the forthcoming election especially if the escalation hurts the US economy.

The fear of a Third World War in the offing is valid, even though this time, the US does not have the tacit support of its European allies as firmly as Bush, Clinton and even Obama had. Germany and France, victims of the 2nd World War think differently from Trump’s US. Smaller European countries that Trump calls the 2%ters of NATO are unhappy and noncommittal. The scenario of the US taking on Iran with help of the gulf nations does not impress me.

With Iran resuming its nuclear development, Israel could undertake a preemptive attack, and as well take on the Hezbollah in Syria. I fear that Russia, China, and North Korea thinking the time to make that move against an economically weakened America is now, would converge. Donald Trump is incapable of processing fast developments and might just press that Atomic button and tell us on twitter. Chaos.

Or else, the war would be asymmetric and by proxies – the world at war with small pockets of peace here and there. This is where it worries me the most. Nigeria would be vulnerable and worse off with Boko Haram buoyed the more by the ensuing chaos in the Arab world.  (Daily Trust)