#WWIII? Unlikely but Soleimani Killing Adds Fuel to the Flames in Middle East

The US assassination of Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s notorious Quds Force and widely regarded as the second most influential figure in the Islamic Republic, has heightened tensions in the Middle East to a level perhaps not seen since immediately prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Thousands turned out for Soleimani’s funeral, although he was by no means universally popular in Iran

Twitter was abuzz with doom-laden predictions, one of the most frequently tagged being #WWIII. Another hashtag that trended heavily in the immediate aftermath of the assassination was #FranzFerdinand. Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne whose infamous murder in 1914 at the hands of Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip, set in motion the wheels of the First World War.

Whilst Donald Trump’s decision to sign off on the execution of Soleimani has understandably enraged the Iranian leadership – not to mention the oblivious Iraqis on whose soil the drone strike took place – predictions of a new global conflict are premature.

In 1914 the conditions in Europe were ripe for war between the great powers, whose possession of international colonies necessitated a translation into a global conflict. Two opposing blocs had formed between the triple entente of Britain, France and Russia, and the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary, soon to be joined by the ailing Ottoman empire and Bulgaria. These blocs in turn interfered and took sides in localised conflicts, particularly the incendiary Balkan states. If it had not been Princip’s trigger that toppled the first domino in the path to war it would have been something else.

The imperialist ambitions of Europe’s great powers ensured the crisis of 1914 mutated into a global war

Iran has vowed revenge for the killing of Soleimani but, even with its allies, it cannot launch a conventional military response to challenge the US. Indeed, such warfare has become increasingly difficult in an interconnected, interdependent world in which nuclear weapons proliferate. The geopolitical landscape has changed significantly since 1914.

True, there are still groups of enemy states backed by localised proxies, competing for regional ascendancy. One of Soleimani’s main qualities – at least according to Ayatollah Khamenei and his devoted followers – was his ability to mobilise proxy groups and states to carry out the bidding of Tehran. But the divisions of the Middle East are so intensely centralised that it is likely that any new ‘traditional’ conflict will be confined to the region.

Iran has for some time offered support to the Lebanese Hezbollah group in its struggle against Israel

This is not to say that Soleimani’s death will not have severe consequences. Iran will respond; it has to. Tehran has already further pulled back from its 2015 nuclear accord and is now likely to proceed at full speed towards nuclearisation (something it almost certainly would have done sooner rather than later in any case). It will continue to export terrorism across the Middle East and may potentially consider sponsoring an attack on the American mainland or on the territory of an American ally. Meanwhile the repercussions for Iraq, whose government may choose to expel American troops given this grave violation of its sovereignty, could lead to a new civil war and the resurgence of the Islamic State.

Trump may hold some of the arrogant delusions of his WWI predecessors who, in the words of Christopher Clark, ‘sleepwalked’ into a devastating conflict. Like them, he has proven unwilling to compromise on almost every issue, his scattergun foreign policy both terribly unsettling and fanning the flames of regional tensions whilst alienating allies.

Yet the question must be asked: how long was Iranian impunity going to be allowed to go unchecked? Tehran has exported terror and exacerbated humanitarian crises across the Middle East and further afield, all in the corrupted name of Islam. It has repressed its own people and allowed them to suffer through years of economic sanctions brought about by its rogue behaviour. A state with any moral capital left may choose to allow their anger to subside and issue a restrained response with the buy-in of the international community, the majority of which did not support the American action. This would allow Tehran to regain at least a portion of respect after years of inflammatory activity, whilst further isolating Trump.

Saudi Arabia says it was not consulted on the drone strike but has called for calm and refrained from criticising US actions

The chances of this happening, unfortunately, are zero. We may not be on the verge of World War Three. However, Donald Trump’s clumsy efforts to punish Iran for its diabolical behaviour are likely to precipitate a renewed battleground in the Middle East, where states will be forced to pick sides between the Islamic Republic and its warped Shiite goals, and the US vision of regional security, along with its steadfast backing of a Jewish state and Arab autocracy.

2020 looks set to be a bumpy ride indeed.

Author: Stefan Lang

An interested observer of current affairs, researcher and writer

2 thoughts on “#WWIII? Unlikely but Soleimani Killing Adds Fuel to the Flames in Middle East”

  1. I’m quite a bit less confident than you are that an Iran-U.S. confrontation wouldn’t eventually lead to a wider and perhaps global conflict. Most of the analyses I’ve read on this issue in the last few days ignore the elephant in the room: climate change, whose effects have created a very profound atmosphere of global instability. World War I was so destructive in my view because the “fuel” it ignited wasn’t so much military or political tension, but social unrest, such as ethnic tensions in Europe and income inequality in Russia. In a similar way, climate change is charging the atmosphere that this spark is escaping into.

    A major war in the Middle East that involves the U.S. by definition involves energy security, specifically oil–access to a resource that we know is killing the planet and that we have to stop using. The question of what to do about climate change and our resource habits that cause it is a global question with worldwide strategic implications. For me, evaluating a possible war with Iran is less about what’s at stake in the U.S-Iranian relationship, but what other much more profound conflict sources that a war like this might inadvertently ignite.

  2. As is often the case I think climate change will be discounted as a consideration in any future fallout from this crisis.

    Ethnic tensions and population displacement are certainly going to be a cause for concern (they already are in the region) and there are parallels with WWI.

    What’s particularly troublesome for me about the decision to kill Soleimani without even cursory consultation is that it further undermines the domestic opposition to the Iranian regime. A vibrant civil society has been progressively strangled by the state and the assassination gives the Ayatollah a rallying point that even some domestic opponents of the regime will find hard to dismiss. This is a terrible regime and the quashing of any opposition to it is tragic.

    I think despite the heated rhetoric there will be a degree of restraint from all the Middle Eastern states, particularly if Russia and China are whispering in their ears.

    But I admit that the world’s most powerful leaders today are probably no less naive than some of those that unleashed chaos in 1914.

    Little faith in the short or long-term consequences being mitigated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s