Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is on a three-day visit to India. While addressing the Raisina Dialogue, Zarif talked on Ukrainian plane shooting by Iran and current tensions between Iran and the US. He talked about his outlook on the US government.

Javad Zarif talk on Ukrainian plane shooting

Qasem Soleimani killing: US leadership is ignorant and arrogant, says Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif

Asia equities extended a global rally on Tuesday, with the US decision to no longer designate China a currency manipulator a further sign of easing tensions between the economic titans.

The Treasury announcement came days before the two sides are due to sign off on the first part of a wider trade agreement that has helped fan a rally in world markets.

It also led to a sell-off in safe-haven assets with the yen at a seven-month low and gold down almost one per cent, while oil was also struggling with the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/wion-edit-us-iran-conflict-whats-next-273195">US-Iran</a> flare-up seemingly in the rear window for investors.

Asia was given a firm lead from Wall Street, where all three main indexes ended higher with the Nasdaq and S&amp;P 500 hitting fresh records on reports the US was about to remove the manipulator label from China.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/global-stocks-rattled-after-donald-trump-says-no-deadline-on-us-china-trade-deal-266025">Donald Trump</a> accused Beijing in August of weakening its yuan currency "to steal our business and factories", re-stating a long-standing grievance.&nbsp;

But soon after the end of trade on Monday, the Treasury said in its semi-annual report to Congress that the unit had strengthened and Beijing was no longer keeping it artificially weak.

The yuan jumped more than one per cent at one point Tuesday before easing slightly. The currency is up more than four per cent from an 11-year low touched in September.&nbsp;

"The yuan is the purest and best barometer to gauge the market's view on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/us-china-trade-conflict-lack-of-trust-hobbling-the-ability-to-reach-a-deal-198533">US-China</a> trade tension," said AxiTrader's Stephen Innes. "With the yuan strengthening ahead of the 'phase one' deal signing, it's indicating the potential for further improvement in trade relations."

The US reversal of China's status as a manipulator "is a most precise and definitive de-escalation of trade tension to date and provides a less congested road as we pivot to phase two of the broader trade agreement", he added.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/more-tokyo-olympic-events-rescheduled-due-to-heat-concern-266444">Tokyo</a> was among the biggest gainers, rising 0.7 per cent by the break as the dollar advanced against the yen owing to a rush out of safety giving a boost to Japan's exporters.

Hong Kong and Shanghai both gained 0.2 per cent, while Singapore put on 0.3 per cent and Seoul 0.7 per cent.

Sydney was up 0.6 per cent, Wellington and Taipei both gained 0.5 per cent and Jakarta put on 0.2 per cent.

Improving confidence also hit gold, which is a popular go-to asset in times of turmoil. The yellow metal last week broke $1,600 for the first time in seven years on the Iran crisis but the lowering of expectations for a conflict with the US has seen it tumble more than four per cent from its recent high.

The improving China-US outlook saw it drop by 0.9 per cent on Tuesday.

As well as Wednesday's signing, investors are also looking forward to corporate earnings season, which kicks off in earnest this week with the release of reports from top banks including Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan.

"Our expectation is a solid earnings season nothing extraordinary but nothing really terrible," Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco told Bloomberg TV.&nbsp;

"The environment is so accommodative that it really is supportive of risk assets, including equities, even if we have a lacklustre earnings season."

Asia equities extended a global rally on Tuesday, with the US decision to no longer designate China a currency manipulator a further sign of easing tensions between the economic titans.

Asia equities extended a global rally on Tuesday, with the US decision to no longer designate China a currency manipulator a further sign of easing tensions between the economic titans. The Treasury announcement came days before the two sides are due to sign off on the first part of a wider trade agreement that has helped fan a rally in world markets. It also led to a sell-off in safe-haven assets with the yen at a seven-month low and gold down almost one per cent, while oil was also struggling with the US-Iran flare-up seemingly in the rear window for investors. Asia was given a firm lead from Wall Street, where all three main indexes ended higher with the Nasdaq and S&P 500 hitting fresh records on reports the US was about to remove the manipulator label from China. Donald Trump accused Beijing in August of weakening its yuan currency "to steal our business and factories", re-stating a long-standing grievance. But soon after the end of trade on Monday, the Treasury said in its semi-annual report to Congress that the unit had strengthened and Beijing was no longer keeping it artificially weak. The yuan jumped more than one per cent at one point Tuesday before easing slightly. The currency is up more than four per cent from an 11-year low touched in September. "The yuan is the purest and best barometer to gauge the market's view on US-China trade tension," said AxiTrader's Stephen Innes. "With the yuan strengthening ahead of the 'phase one' deal signing, it's indicating the potential for further improvement in trade relations." The US reversal of China's status as a manipulator "is a most precise and definitive de-escalation of trade tension to date and provides a less congested road as we pivot to phase two of the broader trade agreement", he added. Tokyo was among the biggest gainers, rising 0.7 per cent by the break as the dollar advanced against the yen owing to a rush out of safety giving a boost to Japan's exporters. Hong Kong and Shanghai both gained 0.2 per cent, while Singapore put on 0.3 per cent and Seoul 0.7 per cent. Sydney was up 0.6 per cent, Wellington and Taipei both gained 0.5 per cent and Jakarta put on 0.2 per cent. Improving confidence also hit gold, which is a popular go-to asset in times of turmoil. The yellow metal last week broke $1,600 for the first time in seven years on the Iran crisis but the lowering of expectations for a conflict with the US has seen it tumble more than four per cent from its recent high. The improving China-US outlook saw it drop by 0.9 per cent on Tuesday. As well as Wednesday's signing, investors are also looking forward to corporate earnings season, which kicks off in earnest this week with the release of reports from top banks including Citibank, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan. "Our expectation is a solid earnings season nothing extraordinary but nothing really terrible," Kristina Hooper, chief global market strategist at Invesco told Bloomberg TV. "The environment is so accommodative that it really is supportive of risk assets, including equities, even if we have a lacklustre earnings season."

Asian markets, yuan rise as US-China tensions ease further

An Iran hawk who advocated killing General Qasem Soleimani, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has ordered his diplomats to limit contacts with militant Iranian exile and opposition groups that support either regime change or greater rights for ethnic groups like Kurds and Arabs.

Coming on the back of the Soleimani killing, Pompeo’s directive appears to put an end to the Trump administration’s hinting that it covertly supports insurgent efforts to at the very least destabilise the Iranian government if not topple it.

A litmus test of the directive by Pompeo, known to have a close relationship with Donald J Trump, is likely to be whether the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, distances himself from the controversial National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an offshoot of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a group that was taken off the US Treasury’s list of designated terrorists several years ago.

Giuliani is a frequent, well-paid speaker at gatherings of the group that has built a significant network among Western political elites. The council and the Mujahedeen openly call for regime change in Iran.

The Mujahedeen were moved with US assistance from their exile base in Iraq to a reportedly Saudi-funded secretive facility in Albania.

A New Jersey-based lobbying firm hired by the NCRI, Rosemont Associates, reported last year in its filing as a foreign agent frequent email and telephone contact on behalf of its client with the US embassy in the Albanian capital of Tirana as well as Brian Hook, the US Special Representative for Iran, and Gabriel Noronha, an aide to Hook.

In his directive, Pompeo said that “Direct US government engagement with these groups could prove counterproductive to our policy goal of seeking a comprehensive deal with the Iranian regime that addresses its destabilising behaviour.”&nbsp;

The secretary went on to say that Iranian opposition groups “Try to engage US officials regularly to gain at least the appearance of tacit support and enhance their visibility and clout.”

Pompeo’s cable, while keeping a potential negotiated deal with Iran on the table, does not stop other US government agencies from covertly supporting the various groups, that also includes Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of al-Ahwaz (AMLA), the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI).

Iran, which has long believed that the United States, alongside Saudi Arabia and Israel, supported the Mujahedeen as well as ethnic militants that intermittently launch attacks inside Iran, is likely to take a wait-and see-attitude towards Pompeo’s directive that could be seen as a signal that the Trump administration is not seeking regime change.

The timing of the directive is significant. Iran responded to the killing of Soleimani with carefully calibrated missile attacks on US facilities in Iraq in a bid to create an environment in which backchanneling potentially could steer the United States and Iran back to the negotiating table.

While it was uncertain that one round of escalated tensions would do the trick, potential efforts were not helped by the death of Oman’s Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said, a key interlocutor who has repeatedly helped resolve US-Iranian problems and initiated contacts that ultimately led to the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program.

In his directive, Pompeo, referring to Komala, acknowledged that “Iran’s regime appears to assess that the United States and/or Israel support this group of militant Kurds.”

Iranian perceptions were reinforced not only by calls for regime change by senior figures like Giuliani and Saudi prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of the kingdom’s intelligence service and ex-ambassador to Britain and the United States, but also the appointment in 2018 of Steven Fagin as counsel general in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Shortly before moving to Erbil, Fagin met in Washington as head of the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs, with Mustafa Hijri, leader of the KDPI as it stepped up its attacks in Iranian Kurdistan.

Iranian perceptions were further informed by the appointment of John Bolton, Trump’s since departed national security advisor and like Giuliani a frequent speaker at NCRI events, who publicly advocates support of ethnic insurgencies in Iran in a bid to change the regime.

As Trump’s first director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Pompeo named Michael D’Andrea, a hard-charging, chain-smoking covert operations officer, alternatively nicknamed the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, whose track record includes overseeing the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, as head of the CIA’s Iran operations.

The appointment was followed by the publication by a Riyadh-based think tank believed to be close to crown prince Mohammed bin Salman of a study for Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran. Prince Mohammed vowed around the same time that “We will work so that the battle is for them in Iran, not in Saudi Arabia.”

Pakistani militants have claimed that Saudi Arabia had stepped up funding of militant madrassas or religious seminaries in the Pakistani province of Balochistan that allegedly serves as havens for anti-Iranian fighters.

The New York Times reported this week that aides to Prince Mohammed had in the past discussed with private businessmen the assassination of Soleimani, an architect of Iran’s regional network of proxies, and other Iranians as well as ways of sabotaging the country’s economy.

Pompeo’s directive is unlikely to persuade Iran that Washington has had a change of heart. Indeed, it hasn’t. Trump maintains his campaign of maximum pressure and this week imposed additional sanctions on Iran.

Nonetheless, potentially taking regime change off the table facilitates backchanneling that aims at getting the two nations to talk again. 
 
(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

An Iran hawk who advocated killing General Qasem Soleimani, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has ordered his diplomats to limit contacts with militant Iranian exile and opposition groups that support either regime change or greater rights for ethnic groups like Kurds and Arabs.

An Iran hawk who advocated killing General Qasem Soleimani, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has ordered his diplomats to limit contacts with militant Iranian exile and opposition groups that support either regime change or greater rights for ethnic groups like Kurds and Arabs. Coming on the back of the Soleimani killing, Pompeo’s directive appears to put an end to the Trump administration’s hinting that it covertly supports insurgent efforts to at the very least destabilise the Iranian government if not topple it. A litmus test of the directive by Pompeo, known to have a close relationship with Donald J Trump, is likely to be whether the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, distances himself from the controversial National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an offshoot of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a group that was taken off the US Treasury’s list of designated terrorists several years ago. Giuliani is a frequent, well-paid speaker at gatherings of the group that has built a significant network among Western political elites. The council and the Mujahedeen openly call for regime change in Iran. The Mujahedeen were moved with US assistance from their exile base in Iraq to a reportedly Saudi-funded secretive facility in Albania. A New Jersey-based lobbying firm hired by the NCRI, Rosemont Associates, reported last year in its filing as a foreign agent frequent email and telephone contact on behalf of its client with the US embassy in the Albanian capital of Tirana as well as Brian Hook, the US Special Representative for Iran, and Gabriel Noronha, an aide to Hook. In his directive, Pompeo said that “Direct US government engagement with these groups could prove counterproductive to our policy goal of seeking a comprehensive deal with the Iranian regime that addresses its destabilising behaviour.” The secretary went on to say that Iranian opposition groups “Try to engage US officials regularly to gain at least the appearance of tacit support and enhance their visibility and clout.” Pompeo’s cable, while keeping a potential negotiated deal with Iran on the table, does not stop other US government agencies from covertly supporting the various groups, that also includes Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of al-Ahwaz (AMLA), the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI). Iran, which has long believed that the United States, alongside Saudi Arabia and Israel, supported the Mujahedeen as well as ethnic militants that intermittently launch attacks inside Iran, is likely to take a wait-and see-attitude towards Pompeo’s directive that could be seen as a signal that the Trump administration is not seeking regime change. The timing of the directive is significant. Iran responded to the killing of Soleimani with carefully calibrated missile attacks on US facilities in Iraq in a bid to create an environment in which backchanneling potentially could steer the United States and Iran back to the negotiating table. While it was uncertain that one round of escalated tensions would do the trick, potential efforts were not helped by the death of Oman’s Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said, a key interlocutor who has repeatedly helped resolve US-Iranian problems and initiated contacts that ultimately led to the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program. In his directive, Pompeo, referring to Komala, acknowledged that “Iran’s regime appears to assess that the United States and/or Israel support this group of militant Kurds.” Iranian perceptions were reinforced not only by calls for regime change by senior figures like Giuliani and Saudi prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of the kingdom’s intelligence service and ex-ambassador to Britain and the United States, but also the appointment in 2018 of Steven Fagin as counsel general in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. Shortly before moving to Erbil, Fagin met in Washington as head of the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs, with Mustafa Hijri, leader of the KDPI as it stepped up its attacks in Iranian Kurdistan. Iranian perceptions were further informed by the appointment of John Bolton, Trump’s since departed national security advisor and like Giuliani a frequent speaker at NCRI events, who publicly advocates support of ethnic insurgencies in Iran in a bid to change the regime. As Trump’s first director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Pompeo named Michael D’Andrea, a hard-charging, chain-smoking covert operations officer, alternatively nicknamed the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike, whose track record includes overseeing the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, as head of the CIA’s Iran operations. The appointment was followed by the publication by a Riyadh-based think tank believed to be close to crown prince Mohammed bin Salman of a study for Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran. Prince Mohammed vowed around the same time that “We will work so that the battle is for them in Iran, not in Saudi Arabia.” Pakistani militants have claimed that Saudi Arabia had stepped up funding of militant madrassas or religious seminaries in the Pakistani province of Balochistan that allegedly serves as havens for anti-Iranian fighters. The New York Times reported this week that aides to Prince Mohammed had in the past discussed with private businessmen the assassination of Soleimani, an architect of Iran’s regional network of proxies, and other Iranians as well as ways of sabotaging the country’s economy. Pompeo’s directive is unlikely to persuade Iran that Washington has had a change of heart. Indeed, it hasn’t. Trump maintains his campaign of maximum pressure and this week imposed additional sanctions on Iran. Nonetheless, potentially taking regime change off the table facilitates backchanneling that aims at getting the two nations to talk again. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US backs off support to regime change in Iran

Thousands of Iraqis on Friday marched across the country in an attempt to revive the months-long anti-government protests that have gripped the country.

During the protest, demonstrators also expressed their anger towards the US and Iran over the recent strikes.

The anti-regime demonstrations had been overshadowed recently by spiralling tensions between Tehran and Washington, which led each country to carry out strikes against the other's assets in Iraq over the last week.&nbsp;

"Screw Iran! Screw America!" protesters chanted&nbsp;in the capital's Tahrir Square,&nbsp;the epicentre of the anti-regime movement.

The US on Wednesday killed Iran's top military commander Qasem Soleimani in a drone attack on its Baghdad International Airport.

Soon after the attack, Iran vowed to take "severe revenge". On Wednesday Iran&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-fires-missiles-at-us-bases-in-iraq-272811">fired ballistic missiles on US airbases in Iraq&nbsp;</a>targeting Al-Asad and Irbil.

Iraq is OPEC's second-largest crude producer, but one in five people live in poverty and unemployment is rife among youth, according to the World Bank.

Transparency International ranks Iraq the 12th most corrupt country in the world.

Outraged by government graft and inequality, Iraqis launched an anti-regime protest movement in October that saw unprecedented numbers hit the streets.

But the rallies were met with violence, with nearly 460 people killed and more than 25,000 wounded since they began.

(With inputs from agencies)

Thousands of Iraqis on Friday marched across the country in an attempt to revive the months-long anti-government protests that have gripped the country. During the protest, demonstrators also expressed their anger towards the US and Iran over the recent strikes.

Thousands of Iraqis on Friday marched across the country in an attempt to revive the months-long anti-government protests that have gripped the country. During the protest, demonstrators also expressed their anger towards the US and Iran over the recent strikes. The anti-regime demonstrations had been overshadowed recently by spiralling tensions between Tehran and Washington, which led each country to carry out strikes against the other's assets in Iraq over the last week. "Screw Iran! Screw America!" protesters chanted in the capital's Tahrir Square, the epicentre of the anti-regime movement. The US on Wednesday killed Iran's top military commander Qasem Soleimani in a drone attack on its Baghdad International Airport. Soon after the attack, Iran vowed to take "severe revenge". On Wednesday Iran fired ballistic missiles on US airbases in Iraq targeting Al-Asad and Irbil. Iraq is OPEC's second-largest crude producer, but one in five people live in poverty and unemployment is rife among youth, according to the World Bank. Transparency International ranks Iraq the 12th most corrupt country in the world. Outraged by government graft and inequality, Iraqis launched an anti-regime protest movement in October that saw unprecedented numbers hit the streets. But the rallies were met with violence, with nearly 460 people killed and more than 25,000 wounded since they began. (With inputs from agencies)

'Screw Iran! Screw America!': Thousands of Iraqis rally against government, Tehran and US

Days after Iraqi Parliament approved the US troop pullout from the country, the caretaker premier, Adel Abdel Mahdi on Friday asked the United States to send a delegation&nbsp;to begin the process.

Mahdi spoke to US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and requested&nbsp;that "delegates be sent to Iraq to set the mechanisms to implement parliament's decision for the secure withdrawal of (foreign) forces from Iraq."

During the call, Mahdi also objected to US forces entering Iraq and planes flying over Iraqi airspace.

On January 5, the Iraqi parliament passed a motion calling for the expulsion of US troops, in the aftermath of the assassination of Iranian general and the leader of Iraq’s Hezbollah militia by the US outside Baghdad airport on Friday.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

There are an estimated 6,000 US troops based in Iraq, whose primary function had been helping train the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/thousands-of-mourners-pay-respect-as-qasem-soleimanis-body-reaches-iran-272228">&nbsp;Iraqi military</a>&nbsp;in anti-Isis operations, but their presence has become controversial.

The following day, US commanders sent a letter to their counterparts in Baghdad saying they were preparing for "movement out of Iraq."&nbsp;

The letter said the coalition would "be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement".

The Pentagon said the letter was a draft sent by mistake but Abdel Mahdi disputed that account, saying his office had received signed and translated copies.&nbsp;

He has demanded clarification from Washington of its intentions, while the US-led coalition said Thursday that it too was seeking clarity on the legal ramifications of parliament's vote.&nbsp;

Many Iraqi lawmakers had been infuriated by a US drone strike on Baghdad a week ago that killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani and top Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, among others.

Days later, Iran fired a volley of missiles at Iraqi bases used by the US and other coalition troops, causing damage but no casualties, according to officials.&nbsp;

Days after Iraqi Parliament approved the US troop pullout from the country, the caretaker premier, Adel Abdel Mahdi on Friday asked the United States to send a delegation to begin the process.

Days after Iraqi Parliament approved the US troop pullout from the country, the caretaker premier, Adel Abdel Mahdi on Friday asked the United States to send a delegation to begin the process. Mahdi spoke to US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and requested that "delegates be sent to Iraq to set the mechanisms to implement parliament's decision for the secure withdrawal of (foreign) forces from Iraq." During the call, Mahdi also objected to US forces entering Iraq and planes flying over Iraqi airspace. On January 5, the Iraqi parliament passed a motion calling for the expulsion of US troops, in the aftermath of the assassination of Iranian general and the leader of Iraq’s Hezbollah militia by the US outside Baghdad airport on Friday. There are an estimated 6,000 US troops based in Iraq, whose primary function had been helping train the Iraqi military in anti-Isis operations, but their presence has become controversial. The following day, US commanders sent a letter to their counterparts in Baghdad saying they were preparing for "movement out of Iraq." The letter said the coalition would "be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement". The Pentagon said the letter was a draft sent by mistake but Abdel Mahdi disputed that account, saying his office had received signed and translated copies. He has demanded clarification from Washington of its intentions, while the US-led coalition said Thursday that it too was seeking clarity on the legal ramifications of parliament's vote. Many Iraqi lawmakers had been infuriated by a US drone strike on Baghdad a week ago that killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani and top Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, among others. Days later, Iran fired a volley of missiles at Iraqi bases used by the US and other coalition troops, causing damage but no casualties, according to officials.

Iraq asks US to send delegation and set up mechanism for troop pullout

When Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US airstrike in Baghdad, the immediate question which arose was what was the top Iranian commander doing in Iraq?

The answer is business as usual.

Soleimani who was the chief of the ‘Quds Force’ or the foreign unit of the elite Iranian paramilitary ‘Revolutionary Guards’ has been a frequent visitor to Iraq. He was at the forefront of the Iranian mission to hegemonise Iraq.

The two neighbours fought a long and bloody war in the 1980s but much has changed since then. Iran began extending its influence on Iraq after the latter was invaded by the US&nbsp;in 2003.

But it was in 2005 when Iran got a breakthrough. Parliamentary elections were held in Iraq under US&nbsp;supervision. What followed was a power vacuum left by the Americans who were unacquainted with the sectarian divisions in Iraq.

This is where the Iranians triumphed. Iraq like Iran was an exception in the Middle East, in the sense that both were Shia-majority nations. Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated government which attacked Iran had been toppled.

In his testimony to the US&nbsp;Congress, Kenneth Pollack, the CIA analyst on the Middle East had said, “By late 2006, Iran was putting money on every number on the roulette wheel, providing weapons, cash, information, training and other forms of support to a wide variety of groups—Shia, Sunni, Kurdish and others."

It's speculated that Iran’s aim has been to penetrate not only into Iraqi politics but its society, economy and military.

The mission to dominate Iraq involved funding Shiite militias, forging alliances with politicians and intimidation.

In fact, Abu Muhandis- the deputy commander of the ‘Popular Mobilisation Forces’- an umbrella group of Iraqi Shiite militias was part of Soleimani's convoy in Baghdad. He was also killed in the US strike.

Iran’s dominance over Iraqi politics has, at times, been so significant that it even managed to influence the appointment of the country’s Prime Minister. This was evident when Soleimani convinced Kurdish and Shiite leaders to back Nouri al-Maliki as the PM in 2006.

Iraq is perhaps the most strategically located country in the Middle East. It shares a border with most major nations in the region- Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait.

Dominance over Iraq can open the road to hegemony over Middle East. But that is not the foremost reason why Iran intends to make Iraq a client state.

The shadow of the Iran-Iraq war of whose Soleimani was a veteran still looms large. Iran plans to ensure that Iraq never becomes strong enough to pose a threat again.

Post-2014, Shiite militias led by Soleimani aided an ailing Iraqi army in the fight against the Islamic State. The Iranian influence kept growing, so much so that in 2015, Saudi foreign minister Prince Faisal Al-Saud remarked, “Iran is taking over Iraq.”

But challenges to Iranian hegemony also increased over a period of time. During the 2019 anti-government protests, many Iraqis demanded an end to Iran’s dominance. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Ahead of his death, Soleimani was tasked with quelling this very anger against Iran along with business as usual. &nbsp; 
 
(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

When Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US airstrike in Baghdad, the immediate question which arose was what was the top Iranian commander doing in Iraq? The answer is business as usual.

When Qasem Soleimani was killed in a US airstrike in Baghdad, the immediate question which arose was what was the top Iranian commander doing in Iraq? The answer is business as usual. Soleimani who was the chief of the ‘Quds Force’ or the foreign unit of the elite Iranian paramilitary ‘Revolutionary Guards’ has been a frequent visitor to Iraq. He was at the forefront of the Iranian mission to hegemonise Iraq. The two neighbours fought a long and bloody war in the 1980s but much has changed since then. Iran began extending its influence on Iraq after the latter was invaded by the US in 2003. But it was in 2005 when Iran got a breakthrough. Parliamentary elections were held in Iraq under US supervision. What followed was a power vacuum left by the Americans who were unacquainted with the sectarian divisions in Iraq. This is where the Iranians triumphed. Iraq like Iran was an exception in the Middle East, in the sense that both were Shia-majority nations. Saddam Hussein’s Sunni-dominated government which attacked Iran had been toppled. In his testimony to the US Congress, Kenneth Pollack, the CIA analyst on the Middle East had said, “By late 2006, Iran was putting money on every number on the roulette wheel, providing weapons, cash, information, training and other forms of support to a wide variety of groups—Shia, Sunni, Kurdish and others." It's speculated that Iran’s aim has been to penetrate not only into Iraqi politics but its society, economy and military. The mission to dominate Iraq involved funding Shiite militias, forging alliances with politicians and intimidation. In fact, Abu Muhandis- the deputy commander of the ‘Popular Mobilisation Forces’- an umbrella group of Iraqi Shiite militias was part of Soleimani's convoy in Baghdad. He was also killed in the US strike. Iran’s dominance over Iraqi politics has, at times, been so significant that it even managed to influence the appointment of the country’s Prime Minister. This was evident when Soleimani convinced Kurdish and Shiite leaders to back Nouri al-Maliki as the PM in 2006. Iraq is perhaps the most strategically located country in the Middle East. It shares a border with most major nations in the region- Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Kuwait. Dominance over Iraq can open the road to hegemony over Middle East. But that is not the foremost reason why Iran intends to make Iraq a client state. The shadow of the Iran-Iraq war of whose Soleimani was a veteran still looms large. Iran plans to ensure that Iraq never becomes strong enough to pose a threat again. Post-2014, Shiite militias led by Soleimani aided an ailing Iraqi army in the fight against the Islamic State. The Iranian influence kept growing, so much so that in 2015, Saudi foreign minister Prince Faisal Al-Saud remarked, “Iran is taking over Iraq.” But challenges to Iranian hegemony also increased over a period of time. During the 2019 anti-government protests, many Iraqis demanded an end to Iran’s dominance. Ahead of his death, Soleimani was tasked with quelling this very anger against Iran along with business as usual. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Qasem Soleimani and Iran’s plan to dominate Iraq

Oil edged further above $65 a barrel on Friday as concerns about a possible renewed spike in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/middle-east-protests-a-tug-of-war-over-who-has-the-longer-breath-263181">Middle East tensions</a> outweighed rising US&nbsp;inventories and other signs of ample supply.

Iran responded to a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/donald-trump-orders-killing-of-qassim-suleimani-in-baghdad-271821">US&nbsp;drone strike</a> that killed a top Iranian general on January&nbsp;3 with a missile attack on Iraqi airbases hosting US&nbsp;forces that left no casualties. But a Revolutionary Guards commander said Iran would take "harsher revenge" soon.

"Hostilities may have ended for the time being, but the longer-term risks of conflict have by no means vanished," said Stephen Brennock of oil broker PVM.

"Set against this backdrop, the threat of supply disruptions in the Middle East is very much alive."

Brent crude&nbsp;the global benchmark was up 24 cents at $65.61 by 1155 GMT and was heading for its first weekly decline in six weeks, down over 4 percent. US&nbsp;West Texas Intermediate crude&nbsp;added 11 cents to $59.67.

Brent is still below where it was before the US&nbsp;drone strike killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani on January&nbsp;3.

"There has been some de-escalation, but the return of risk is still there," said Olivier Jakob, oil analyst at Petromatrix.

"The closing hours of Friday are traditionally filled by short-covering due to the impossibility to react during the weekend."

Still, there has been no disruption to Middle East production as a result of the flare-up in tensions and other indications this week suggest supply is ample.

Crude inventories in the United States rose last week by 1.2 million barrels, the US&nbsp;Energy Information Administration said on Wednesday.&nbsp;

That compared with analysts' expectations in a Reuters poll for a 3.6 million-barrel drop.

"There's too much supply out there," a Japan-based based oil executive told Reuters.

In a bid to tackle any build-up of excess supply, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries plus allies including Russia are embarking on a further cut in production as of January&nbsp;1 this year.

Industry surveys, including from Reuters, showed that OPEC output declined in December ahead of the new pact. Still, production remains higher than the forecast demand for early 2020, according to some analysts.&nbsp;

"The oversupply on the oil market is sizeable," said Carsten Fritsch, an analyst at Commerzbank.

Oil edged further above $65 a barrel on Friday as concerns about a possible renewed spike in Middle East tensions outweighed rising US inventories and other signs of ample supply.

Oil edged further above $65 a barrel on Friday as concerns about a possible renewed spike in Middle East tensions outweighed rising US inventories and other signs of ample supply. Iran responded to a US drone strike that killed a top Iranian general on January 3 with a missile attack on Iraqi airbases hosting US forces that left no casualties. But a Revolutionary Guards commander said Iran would take "harsher revenge" soon. "Hostilities may have ended for the time being, but the longer-term risks of conflict have by no means vanished," said Stephen Brennock of oil broker PVM. "Set against this backdrop, the threat of supply disruptions in the Middle East is very much alive." Brent crude the global benchmark was up 24 cents at $65.61 by 1155 GMT and was heading for its first weekly decline in six weeks, down over 4 percent. US West Texas Intermediate crude added 11 cents to $59.67. Brent is still below where it was before the US drone strike killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani on January 3. "There has been some de-escalation, but the return of risk is still there," said Olivier Jakob, oil analyst at Petromatrix. "The closing hours of Friday are traditionally filled by short-covering due to the impossibility to react during the weekend." Still, there has been no disruption to Middle East production as a result of the flare-up in tensions and other indications this week suggest supply is ample. Crude inventories in the United States rose last week by 1.2 million barrels, the US Energy Information Administration said on Wednesday. That compared with analysts' expectations in a Reuters poll for a 3.6 million-barrel drop. "There's too much supply out there," a Japan-based based oil executive told Reuters. In a bid to tackle any build-up of excess supply, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries plus allies including Russia are embarking on a further cut in production as of January 1 this year. Industry surveys, including from Reuters, showed that OPEC output declined in December ahead of the new pact. Still, production remains higher than the forecast demand for early 2020, according to some analysts. "The oversupply on the oil market is sizeable," said Carsten Fritsch, an analyst at Commerzbank.

Oil edges above $65 as Middle East concerns support

The tensions in West Asia means bad news for the global economy and the business community. Many international airlines have been re-routed, oil prices have risen sharply and volatility grips the equity markets. This report looks at some key numbers. #US #Iran #Gravitas #GlobalEconomy

Gravitas: US-Iran conflict, Impact on global economy

Iran calls its missile strikes on U.S. military assets in Iraq 'a fierce revenge'. Two Iraqi bases were targetted. While the U.S. President Trump says 'All is Well', Iran's revolutionary guards hint at more strikes. Details in this report. #US #Iran #Gravitas #IranMissile #USMilitary

Gravitas: How Iran's missile strikes against US military assets in Iraq unfolded?

US-Iran conflict is a tricky situation for India. India maintains strong ties with both the US and Iran. This presents India an opportunity to broker peace in West Asia.&nbsp;

Iran has welcomed any initiatives by India to de-escalate tensions.

This means two things for India:&nbsp; One, an opportunity to play a bigger role in West Asia. Two, the ability to protect its own interest.

On WION Edit, we will explore can India play peacemaker?

First, there are over 8 million Indian workers in West Asia. Peace in the region is the top priority for India.

Two, the Chabahar port which is strategically very important. India is the top player there. Iran has now confirmed that China wants a larger role in developing the port. India must not cede ground to China.

Three, the economic impact - rise in oil prices is a major risk for the Indian economy, especially now amid the slowdown.&nbsp;Rice and tea exports from India to Iran have also been hit.

Four, safeguarding strategic interests. India is an old player in West Asia and we have cultural, people to people ties. Now China is pushing aggressively, with its money.

Earlier, Beijing did not pick sides in this conflict. But now it has changed its tune, especially after the US sanctions.

China, Russia and Iran have faced the wrath of American sanctions. A few days ago, these three countries conducted joint navy exercises in the Gulf of Oman, as well as, Indian ocean.&nbsp;

India is the best poised to handle this crisis. India has a historic relationship with Iran and it also shares a strong equation with the US.

India has close, friendly ties with Russia, strategic ties with China, clout in Saudi Arabia and friends in Israel. If there's one neutral peace broker which can de-escalate this situation, it should be India. It's an opportunity that Delhi shouldn't pass.

India's initial reaction to the killing of Qasem Soleimani has been measured and mature. Iran's foreign minister Javed Zarif will visit India next week. This could be a chance to assess the situation from close-quarters.

Recently, the Indian Navy's warships and aircraft were deployed in the Gulf region. This was to secure India's sea-borne trade, reassure Indian merchants and plan response to an emergency

It's good that India is acting to protect its maritime interests, but prevention is always better than cure. India has to step up its role in West Asia.

If India plays an active role in playing the peacemaker in the US-Iran conflict, it will not only earn the goodwill of Iran and the US, but also establish India's prominence in the region.

(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

US-Iran conflict is a tricky situation for India. India maintains strong ties with both the US and Iran. This presents India an opportunity to broker peace in West Asia.

US-Iran conflict is a tricky situation for India. India maintains strong ties with both the US and Iran. This presents India an opportunity to broker peace in West Asia. Iran has welcomed any initiatives by India to de-escalate tensions. This means two things for India: One, an opportunity to play a bigger role in West Asia. Two, the ability to protect its own interest. On WION Edit, we will explore can India play peacemaker? First, there are over 8 million Indian workers in West Asia. Peace in the region is the top priority for India. Two, the Chabahar port which is strategically very important. India is the top player there. Iran has now confirmed that China wants a larger role in developing the port. India must not cede ground to China. Three, the economic impact - rise in oil prices is a major risk for the Indian economy, especially now amid the slowdown. Rice and tea exports from India to Iran have also been hit. Four, safeguarding strategic interests. India is an old player in West Asia and we have cultural, people to people ties. Now China is pushing aggressively, with its money. Earlier, Beijing did not pick sides in this conflict. But now it has changed its tune, especially after the US sanctions. China, Russia and Iran have faced the wrath of American sanctions. A few days ago, these three countries conducted joint navy exercises in the Gulf of Oman, as well as, Indian ocean. India is the best poised to handle this crisis. India has a historic relationship with Iran and it also shares a strong equation with the US. India has close, friendly ties with Russia, strategic ties with China, clout in Saudi Arabia and friends in Israel. If there's one neutral peace broker which can de-escalate this situation, it should be India. It's an opportunity that Delhi shouldn't pass. India's initial reaction to the killing of Qasem Soleimani has been measured and mature. Iran's foreign minister Javed Zarif will visit India next week. This could be a chance to assess the situation from close-quarters. Recently, the Indian Navy's warships and aircraft were deployed in the Gulf region. This was to secure India's sea-borne trade, reassure Indian merchants and plan response to an emergency It's good that India is acting to protect its maritime interests, but prevention is always better than cure. India has to step up its role in West Asia. If India plays an active role in playing the peacemaker in the US-Iran conflict, it will not only earn the goodwill of Iran and the US, but also establish India's prominence in the region. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

WION Edit: US-Iran crisis - can India play peacemaker?

US-Iran conflict is a tricky situation for India. India maintains strong ties with both the US & Iran. This presents India an opportunity to broker peace in West Asia. Can & Will India play peacemaker? On Wion Edit Palki Sharma explores. #Gravitas #India #US #Iran

Wion Edit: US-Iran conflict: Can India play peacemaker?

US officials believe that Iran accidentally shot down a<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-plane-crash-investigators-consider-several-leads-including-missile-strike-technical-malfunction-act-of-terror-273238"> Ukrainian airliner, killing all of the 176 people on board</a>, US media reported Thursday.

Newsweek, CBS and CNN quoted unnamed officials saying they are increasingly confident that Iranian air defence systems accidentally downed the aircraft, based on satellite, radar and electronic data.

"I have my suspicions," Trump.&nbsp;"It was flying in a pretty rough neighbourhood and somebody could have made a mistake."

"Some people say it was mechanical. I personally don't think that's even a question," Trump said, adding that "something very terrible happened."

The Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) Boeing went down outside Tehran shortly after take-off on Wednesday, killing all 176 people on board including many Iranians and Canadians.

The crash came shortly after Tehran launched missiles at bases in Iraq housing American troops to avenge the US killing of a top Iranian general last week.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump on Thursday also said&nbsp;he has his "suspicions over Iran".

Following the crash, investigators are pursuing several leads including a surface-to-air missile strike, an act of terror and engine failure, news agency AFP reported quoting Ukraine officials.

"For the moment we are working on seven different versions of the event that took place in Iran," Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine's national security and defence council (RNBO), told AFP.

The council is tasked with coordinating the probe into the disaster, the first fatal crash involving Ukraine's biggest carrier UIA.

The airline said the Boeing 737 had been built in 2016 and checked only two days before the accident.&nbsp;

It said the pilots were well trained and that the plane's captain had more than 11,000 hours of flying experience, mostly on the Boeing 737.

Iranian authorities on Thursday said the plane turned around after taking off after suffering a "problem", disappearing from radars at an altitude of 2,400 metres (8,000 feet), but that the crew sent no message about an emergency.

(With inputs from AFP)

US officials believe that Iran accidentally shot down a Ukrainian airliner, killing all of the 176 people on board, US media reported Thursday. Newsweek, CBS and CNN quoted unnamed officials saying they are increasingly confident that Iranian air defence systems accidentally downed the aircraft, based on satellite, radar and electronic data.

US officials believe that Iran accidentally shot down a Ukrainian airliner, killing all of the 176 people on board, US media reported Thursday. Newsweek, CBS and CNN quoted unnamed officials saying they are increasingly confident that Iranian air defence systems accidentally downed the aircraft, based on satellite, radar and electronic data. "I have my suspicions," Trump. "It was flying in a pretty rough neighbourhood and somebody could have made a mistake." "Some people say it was mechanical. I personally don't think that's even a question," Trump said, adding that "something very terrible happened." The Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) Boeing went down outside Tehran shortly after take-off on Wednesday, killing all 176 people on board including many Iranians and Canadians. The crash came shortly after Tehran launched missiles at bases in Iraq housing American troops to avenge the US killing of a top Iranian general last week. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump on Thursday also said he has his "suspicions over Iran". Following the crash, investigators are pursuing several leads including a surface-to-air missile strike, an act of terror and engine failure, news agency AFP reported quoting Ukraine officials. "For the moment we are working on seven different versions of the event that took place in Iran," Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine's national security and defence council (RNBO), told AFP. The council is tasked with coordinating the probe into the disaster, the first fatal crash involving Ukraine's biggest carrier UIA. The airline said the Boeing 737 had been built in 2016 and checked only two days before the accident. It said the pilots were well trained and that the plane's captain had more than 11,000 hours of flying experience, mostly on the Boeing 737. Iranian authorities on Thursday said the plane turned around after taking off after suffering a "problem", disappearing from radars at an altitude of 2,400 metres (8,000 feet), but that the crew sent no message about an emergency. (With inputs from AFP)

US officials believe Iran accidentally shot down Ukraine airliner: Reports

New Iran sanctions are already in effect, US President Donald Trump said on Thursday in a televised address from the White House.

"It's already been done. We've increased them. They were very severe, but now it's increased substantially," Trump said, without offering any specifics.

Trump on Wednesday announced new sanctions after Iran fired ballistic missiles on US airbase in Iraq targeting Al-Asad and Irbil.

Trump has also said that these missile attacks had not harmed any US troops and the damage was minimal, an outcome he said showed Tehran wanted to de-escalate a standoff.

He termed these sanctions as 'punishing economic sanctions' against the Iran government.

Meanwhile, on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-plane-crash-investigators-consider-several-leads-including-missile-strike-technical-malfunction-act-of-terror-273238">Ukraine airline crash in Tehran</a>, Trump said he has his "suspicions over Iran".

"I have my suspicions," Trump.&nbsp;"It was flying in a pretty rough neighbourhood and somebody could have made a mistake."

"Some people say it was mechanical. I personally don't think that's even a question," Trump said, adding that "something very terrible happened."

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/crashed-boeing-underwent-maintenance-checks-2-days-before-accident-ukraine-airline-273006">Ukraine International Airlines&nbsp;</a>(UIA) Boeing went down outside Tehran shortly after take-off on Wednesday, killing all 176 people on board.

The crash, which killed mainly Iranians and Canadians, came shortly after Tehran launched missiles at bases in Iraq housing American troops to avenge the US killing of a top Iranian general last week.

Iran's top military commander Qasem Soleimani was killed after US strike&nbsp;Baghdad International Airport, marking a dramatic escalation in the shadow war of Iran and US.

Following the strike, Trump addressed the nation from the White House and&nbsp;said that these missile attacks did not harm any US troops and the damage was minimal, an outcome he showed as Tehran wanting&nbsp;to de-escalate the&nbsp;standoff.

(With inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

New Iran sanctions are already in effect, US President Donald Trump said on Thursday in a televised address from the White House. "It's already been done. We've increased them.

New Iran sanctions are already in effect, US President Donald Trump said on Thursday in a televised address from the White House. "It's already been done. We've increased them. They were very severe, but now it's increased substantially," Trump said, without offering any specifics. Trump on Wednesday announced new sanctions after Iran fired ballistic missiles on US airbase in Iraq targeting Al-Asad and Irbil. Trump has also said that these missile attacks had not harmed any US troops and the damage was minimal, an outcome he said showed Tehran wanted to de-escalate a standoff. He termed these sanctions as 'punishing economic sanctions' against the Iran government. Meanwhile, on Ukraine airline crash in Tehran, Trump said he has his "suspicions over Iran". "I have my suspicions," Trump. "It was flying in a pretty rough neighbourhood and somebody could have made a mistake." "Some people say it was mechanical. I personally don't think that's even a question," Trump said, adding that "something very terrible happened." The Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) Boeing went down outside Tehran shortly after take-off on Wednesday, killing all 176 people on board. The crash, which killed mainly Iranians and Canadians, came shortly after Tehran launched missiles at bases in Iraq housing American troops to avenge the US killing of a top Iranian general last week. Iran's top military commander Qasem Soleimani was killed after US strike Baghdad International Airport, marking a dramatic escalation in the shadow war of Iran and US. Following the strike, Trump addressed the nation from the White House and said that these missile attacks did not harm any US troops and the damage was minimal, an outcome he showed as Tehran wanting to de-escalate the standoff. (With inputs from agencies)

New Iran sanctions are already in effect, says US President Donald Trump

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called for an "end to hostilities" on Thursday as he urged&nbsp;Iran's Hassan Rouhani to end the standoff with the United States.

During the 20-minutes call, Johnson also underlined Britain's commitment to Tehran's nuclear agreement.

Britain viewed the 2015 nuclear deal as "the best arrangement currently available to deliver on our goal of stopping Iran from having a nuclear weapon", Johnson's&nbsp;spokesperson&nbsp;said in a statement.

The statement also said that&nbsp;Johnson wanted to "deliver the clear message" to Iran that "there is an urgent need for de-escalation".

The tension between US and Iran saw a dramatic escalation last week after the US killed Iran' top military commander, General&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-general-soleimanis-killing-was-self-defense-us-ambassador-kelly-craft-to-un-273117">Qasem Soleimani</a>&nbsp;in a strike in Baghdad International Airport.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, in retaliation,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-fires-missiles-at-us-bases-in-iraq-272811">Iran&nbsp;fired ballistic missiles on US airbases in Iraq&nbsp;</a>targeting Al-Asad and Irbil.

Following the attack, Trump addressed the nation from White House and&nbsp;said that these missile attacks did not harm any US troops and the damage was minimal, an outcome he showed as Tehran wanting&nbsp;to de-escalate the&nbsp;standoff.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Trump during the televised address said,&nbsp;"the time has come" for Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China to follow Washington's lead and abandon the 2015 nuclear agreement, which sets limits on Iran's enrichment levels.

Iran began breaking the deal's rules once Trump pulled the US out in 2018, resulting in a new wave of tension.

(With inputs from agencies)

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called for an "end to hostilities" on Thursday as he urged Iran's Hassan Rouhani to end the standoff with the United States. During the 20-minutes call, Johnson also underlined Britain's commitment to Tehran's nuclear agreement.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson called for an "end to hostilities" on Thursday as he urged Iran's Hassan Rouhani to end the standoff with the United States. During the 20-minutes call, Johnson also underlined Britain's commitment to Tehran's nuclear agreement. Britain viewed the 2015 nuclear deal as "the best arrangement currently available to deliver on our goal of stopping Iran from having a nuclear weapon", Johnson's spokesperson said in a statement. The statement also said that Johnson wanted to "deliver the clear message" to Iran that "there is an urgent need for de-escalation". The tension between US and Iran saw a dramatic escalation last week after the US killed Iran' top military commander, General Qasem Soleimani in a strike in Baghdad International Airport. On Wednesday, in retaliation, Iran fired ballistic missiles on US airbases in Iraq targeting Al-Asad and Irbil. Following the attack, Trump addressed the nation from White House and said that these missile attacks did not harm any US troops and the damage was minimal, an outcome he showed as Tehran wanting to de-escalate the standoff. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Trump during the televised address said, "the time has come" for Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China to follow Washington's lead and abandon the 2015 nuclear agreement, which sets limits on Iran's enrichment levels. Iran began breaking the deal's rules once Trump pulled the US out in 2018, resulting in a new wave of tension. (With inputs from agencies)

UK's Boris Johnson calls for 'end to hostilities' with US in call to Iran's Rouhani

Iranians play chess, Americans play backgammon when it comes to warfare, military strategy and conflict management.

That is becoming increasingly obvious in the US-Iranian tit-for-tat on an Iraqi gameboard.

Hobbled by harsh US economic sanctions and a weak military hand, Iran has perfected the art of asymmetric warfare and carefully calibrated operations, as well as, acts of political violence, an approach that the United States has yet to come to grips with.

Iran’s firing of missiles at two US bases in Iraq in its initial military response to the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani deftly served multiple purposes while leaving the door open to de-escalation.

The Iranian missiles targetting the bases, part of what Iran dubbed Operation Harsh Revenge, were launched as millions crowded the streets of the city of Kerman for the funeral of Soleimani, the third day of a mass outpouring of mourning, public anger and calls for revenge.

Using guided precision missiles, Iran was careful to demonstrate its capability while not causing the further US and Iraqi casualties that almost certainly would have provoked a harsh US response.

Driving the point home, Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the missile attacks as a "slap in the face" of the United States.

Khamenei went on to say that Iran’s real revenge would be the expulsion of US forces from the Middle East.&nbsp;

"Military actions in this form are not sufficient for that issue. What is important is that America's corrupt presence must come to an end in this region," he said.

In a televised address, Trump, flanked by Secretary of Defence Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and several members of the military top brass. appeared to respond positively to the Iranian overture, cloaking it as Iran “standing down.”

Amid the bluster justifying the killing of Soleimani, promises to impose additional sanctions against Iran, vows that Iran would not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and extolling American military and economic might, President Trump insisted that “the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.”

He noted that the US and Iran had a common interest in fighting the Islamic State, one reason why Soleimani was a popular figure in Iran and went on to say that “We should work together on this and other shared priorities.”

Determined not to get embroiled in another Middle East war, Trump’s acknowledgement of the Iranian gesture hardly comes as a surprise.

Trump has in the past nine months exercised in military terms the kind of strategic patience that Iran adopted in the first 18 months after the United States withdrew in 2018 from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program and imposed its economic sanctions.

Iran in May/June of last year switched its posture to one of calibrated escalation after Europe, Russia and China proved unwilling and/or incapable of salvaging the nuclear accord in a way that Iran would be at least partially compensated for the severe impact of the sanctions.

Trump refrained from responding militarily to numerous attacks, including last year’s Iranian downing of a US drone, attacks on tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, and two key Saudi oil facilities.

Those attacks were the ones that caught the most international attention, but were, according to US officials, only the tip of the iceberg.

The officials said there had been some 90 attacks on US targets in Iraq since May 2019 carried out by Iranian-backed Iraqi militias, including Kataeb Hezbollah, whose leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was killed alongside Soleimani.

The attacks were intended not only to force the US to escalate tensions by provoking a military response in the hope that it would lead to a return to the negotiating table but also an environment conducive to a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government and/or public pressure.

“The nearly eight months in which the United States did not respond forcefully to a series of military provocations and attacks almost certainly contributed to the increasingly assertive and audacious actions by Iran and its proxies,” said Michael Eisenstadt, an expert on the military and strategy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).

Trump’s apparent, so far disproven, belief that bluster and intimidation will force his adversaries coupled with television images of the besieged US embassy in Baghdad is likely what persuaded him to respond disproportionately to the killing of a US contractor by assassinating Soleimani.

Iran hopes that the scare of an escalating tit-for-tat that gets out of control will energise efforts to bring the United States and the Islamic Republic back to the negotiating table.

To do so, the third party with leverage on both sides of the divide like Oman would have to bridge a gap on the terms of reviving negotiations aimed at reinstituting the nuclear accord that has been widened by Soleimani’s killing.

Revival of the agreement would have to involve revised terms that include Iran’s controversial ballistic missiles programme and support for proxies across the Middle East, the core of its defence strategy.

Dialling down tension at best buys the United States and Iran time. It does not solve anything.

Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, insisted this week that the Trump administration’s goal was to “contain and confront” Iran.

Iran retains a vested interest in strategic escalation. It may hope that the current crisis is the monkey wrench that breaks the logjam but will seek to again push things to the brink if it is disappointed.

Said The Washington Post in an editorial prior to Trump’s latest remarks: “The way to avoid these outcomes is to work with allies and other intermediaries to offer Iran a diplomatic solution before the slide toward war becomes irreversible. In short, what’s needed is Pompeo’s ‘de-escalation,’ not Trump’s reckless threats.”

Trump has proven that he can go either way. 
 
(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Iranians play chess, Americans play backgammon when it comes to warfare, military strategy and conflict management. That is becoming increasingly obvious in the US-Iranian tit-for-tat on an Iraqi gameboard.

Iranians play chess, Americans play backgammon when it comes to warfare, military strategy and conflict management. That is becoming increasingly obvious in the US-Iranian tit-for-tat on an Iraqi gameboard. Hobbled by harsh US economic sanctions and a weak military hand, Iran has perfected the art of asymmetric warfare and carefully calibrated operations, as well as, acts of political violence, an approach that the United States has yet to come to grips with. Iran’s firing of missiles at two US bases in Iraq in its initial military response to the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani deftly served multiple purposes while leaving the door open to de-escalation. The Iranian missiles targetting the bases, part of what Iran dubbed Operation Harsh Revenge, were launched as millions crowded the streets of the city of Kerman for the funeral of Soleimani, the third day of a mass outpouring of mourning, public anger and calls for revenge. Using guided precision missiles, Iran was careful to demonstrate its capability while not causing the further US and Iraqi casualties that almost certainly would have provoked a harsh US response. Driving the point home, Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei described the missile attacks as a "slap in the face" of the United States. Khamenei went on to say that Iran’s real revenge would be the expulsion of US forces from the Middle East. "Military actions in this form are not sufficient for that issue. What is important is that America's corrupt presence must come to an end in this region," he said. In a televised address, Trump, flanked by Secretary of Defence Mark Esper, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and several members of the military top brass. appeared to respond positively to the Iranian overture, cloaking it as Iran “standing down.” Amid the bluster justifying the killing of Soleimani, promises to impose additional sanctions against Iran, vows that Iran would not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and extolling American military and economic might, President Trump insisted that “the United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.” He noted that the US and Iran had a common interest in fighting the Islamic State, one reason why Soleimani was a popular figure in Iran and went on to say that “We should work together on this and other shared priorities.” Determined not to get embroiled in another Middle East war, Trump’s acknowledgement of the Iranian gesture hardly comes as a surprise. Trump has in the past nine months exercised in military terms the kind of strategic patience that Iran adopted in the first 18 months after the United States withdrew in 2018 from the 2015 international agreement that curbed Iran’s nuclear program and imposed its economic sanctions. Iran in May/June of last year switched its posture to one of calibrated escalation after Europe, Russia and China proved unwilling and/or incapable of salvaging the nuclear accord in a way that Iran would be at least partially compensated for the severe impact of the sanctions. Trump refrained from responding militarily to numerous attacks, including last year’s Iranian downing of a US drone, attacks on tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, and two key Saudi oil facilities. Those attacks were the ones that caught the most international attention, but were, according to US officials, only the tip of the iceberg. The officials said there had been some 90 attacks on US targets in Iraq since May 2019 carried out by Iranian-backed Iraqi militias, including Kataeb Hezbollah, whose leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was killed alongside Soleimani. The attacks were intended not only to force the US to escalate tensions by provoking a military response in the hope that it would lead to a return to the negotiating table but also an environment conducive to a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government and/or public pressure. “The nearly eight months in which the United States did not respond forcefully to a series of military provocations and attacks almost certainly contributed to the increasingly assertive and audacious actions by Iran and its proxies,” said Michael Eisenstadt, an expert on the military and strategy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Trump’s apparent, so far disproven, belief that bluster and intimidation will force his adversaries coupled with television images of the besieged US embassy in Baghdad is likely what persuaded him to respond disproportionately to the killing of a US contractor by assassinating Soleimani. Iran hopes that the scare of an escalating tit-for-tat that gets out of control will energise efforts to bring the United States and the Islamic Republic back to the negotiating table. To do so, the third party with leverage on both sides of the divide like Oman would have to bridge a gap on the terms of reviving negotiations aimed at reinstituting the nuclear accord that has been widened by Soleimani’s killing. Revival of the agreement would have to involve revised terms that include Iran’s controversial ballistic missiles programme and support for proxies across the Middle East, the core of its defence strategy. Dialling down tension at best buys the United States and Iran time. It does not solve anything. Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, insisted this week that the Trump administration’s goal was to “contain and confront” Iran. Iran retains a vested interest in strategic escalation. It may hope that the current crisis is the monkey wrench that breaks the logjam but will seek to again push things to the brink if it is disappointed. Said The Washington Post in an editorial prior to Trump’s latest remarks: “The way to avoid these outcomes is to work with allies and other intermediaries to offer Iran a diplomatic solution before the slide toward war becomes irreversible. In short, what’s needed is Pompeo’s ‘de-escalation,’ not Trump’s reckless threats.” Trump has proven that he can go either way. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why did Iran and US step back from all-out war

Iran's missile attacks on US targets did not aim to kill the American soldiers, a senior Iranian commander said on Thursday&nbsp;after United States President Donald Trump said that<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-no-us-troops-hurt-in-iran-strikes-announces-new-sanctions-on-iran-273049"> no US troops were hurt</a> in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missile-strike-a-slap-in-the-face-for-us-says-irans-supreme-leader-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-273043">Wednesday's strike on its airbase in Iraq</a>.

Amirali Hajizadeh, the head of the Revolutionary Guards Aerospace Force, said that the strike was aimed to&nbsp;damage Washington's "military machine" and it was the start of a series of attacks across the region.

The tension between US and Iran saw a dramatic escalation last week after the US killed Iran' top military commander, General <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-general-soleimanis-killing-was-self-defense-us-ambassador-kelly-craft-to-un-273117">Qasem Soleimani</a> in a strike in Baghdad International Airport.&nbsp;

On Wednesday, in retaliation, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-fires-missiles-at-us-bases-in-iraq-272811">Iran&nbsp;fired ballistic missiles on US airbases in Iraq </a>targeting Al-Asad and Irbil.

Following the attack, Trump addressed the nation from White House and&nbsp;said that these missile attacks did not harm any US troops and the damage was minimal, an outcome he showed as Tehran wanting&nbsp;to de-escalate the&nbsp;standoff.

Watch | Three things missing from Trump's speech on Iran

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/three-things-missing-from-trumps-speech-on-iran-273219/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/key-facts-about-al-asad-us-air-base-in-iraq-attacked-by-iran-272873">In Pics:&nbsp;Key facts about Al-Asad US airbase in Iraq attacked by Iran</a>

The local media also quoted Hajizadeh saying that&nbsp;the "appropriate revenge" for the Soleimani's killing&nbsp;was to expel US forces from the Middle East.

He also said Iran had hundreds of missiles at the ready and when Tehran launched missiles on Wednesday it had used "cyberattacks to disable (US) plane and drone navigation systems."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-rockets-crash-into-iraqs-green-zone-no-casualties-reported-273079">Read more: Two rockets crash into Iraq's Green Zone; no casualties reported</a>

Soleimani was one of Iran's most popular public figures. He was laid to rest in his hometown early on Wednesday morning after massive funeral processions in several major cities of Iran.

(With inputs from agencies)

Iran's missile attacks on US targets did not aim to kill the American soldiers, a senior Iranian commander said on Thursday after United States President Donald Trump said that no US troops were hurt in Wednesday's strike on its airbase in Iraq.

Iran's missile attacks on US targets did not aim to kill the American soldiers, a senior Iranian commander said on Thursday after United States President Donald Trump said that no US troops were hurt in Wednesday's strike on its airbase in Iraq. Amirali Hajizadeh, the head of the Revolutionary Guards Aerospace Force, said that the strike was aimed to damage Washington's "military machine" and it was the start of a series of attacks across the region. The tension between US and Iran saw a dramatic escalation last week after the US killed Iran' top military commander, General Qasem Soleimani in a strike in Baghdad International Airport. On Wednesday, in retaliation, Iran fired ballistic missiles on US airbases in Iraq targeting Al-Asad and Irbil. Following the attack, Trump addressed the nation from White House and said that these missile attacks did not harm any US troops and the damage was minimal, an outcome he showed as Tehran wanting to de-escalate the standoff. Watch | Three things missing from Trump's speech on Iran × In Pics: Key facts about Al-Asad US airbase in Iraq attacked by Iran The local media also quoted Hajizadeh saying that the "appropriate revenge" for the Soleimani's killing was to expel US forces from the Middle East. He also said Iran had hundreds of missiles at the ready and when Tehran launched missiles on Wednesday it had used "cyberattacks to disable (US) plane and drone navigation systems." Read more: Two rockets crash into Iraq's Green Zone; no casualties reported Soleimani was one of Iran's most popular public figures. He was laid to rest in his hometown early on Wednesday morning after massive funeral processions in several major cities of Iran. (With inputs from agencies)

Missile strike was start of a series of attacks across the region: Iranian commander

Many are calling Trump's speech on Iran incoherent that there is no clear message in it. WION has identified three things that were missing from Trump's speech. Watch report to know more: #Trump #DonaldTrump #TrumpSpeech #WION #US #IRAN

Three things missing from Trump's speech on Iran

US stocks ended higher on January 8 with the Nasdaq notching a new record close after President Donald Trump suggested the US and Iran were refraining from further military action. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 161 points, or 0.56%, to 28,745, the S&P 500 added 16 points, or 0.49%, to 3,253, and the Nasdaq Composite advanced 61 points, or 0.67%, to 9,129. #US #USStocks #USStockMarket

US stocks gain after Trump's speech

By Rockford Weitz

Soaring tensions between Iran and the United States have reignited fears that the Strait of Hormuz could become a flashpoint as Tehran responds to the killing of its top general.

Oil prices climbed on news of the fatal airstrike, reflecting concern that any fallout could disrupt shipping in the narrow seaway through which 21 per cent of the world’s crude oil passes.

Meanwhile, the US Maritime Administration issued an alert over potential Iranian action against “Maritime interests in the region” and the UK announced that the Royal Navy would resume escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz as a precaution.

As a researcher who studies strategic maritime chokepoints like this one in the Middle East, I have seen how past skirmishes in this waterway have fit into Iran’s use of hybrid warfare – unconventional tactics that achieve strategic goals without triggering conventional military retaliation. In fact, Iranian leaders will likely feel tremendous political pressure to ratchet up maritime hybrid warfare in response to the drone strike that killed the general.

A 21-mile-wide waterway

This 21-mile-wide channel connects the Indian Ocean with the Gulf. For all of recorded history, it has connected Arab and Persian civilisations with the Indian subcontinent and Pacific Asia. For example, before the rise of European seaborne empires in the 15th and 16th centuries, porcelain from China and spices from the Indochina peninsula often passed through the strait on the way to Central Asia and Europe.

Today the Strait of Hormuz separates Iran from the countries of Oman and the United Arab Emirates, which have strong military ties with the United States.

All shipping traffic from energy-rich Gulf countries converges in the strait, including crude oil and liquefied natural gas exports from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

This maritime chokepoint became an arena of conflict during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Each side in the so-called “Tanker War” tried to sink the other’s energy exports. To avoid being targeted, Kuwaiti oil tankers were reflagged under the US&nbsp;shipping registry, obscuring their true ownership. Although crude oil continued to flow, marine insurance rates for vessels operating in the strait spiked by as much as 400 per cent.

Why is the strait a concern now? 
 
The US killing of General Qasem Soleimani has sparked fears that Iran could take action in the Strait of Hormuz as part of a retaliatory move – as they have threatened before.

Recent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz arose after the Trump administration’s decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018. When Iran struck that accord in 2015 with the US, UK, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Union, it agreed to restrict its nuclear development in exchange for lifting economic sanctions against it.

By July 2018, Iran had threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to retaliate against the ratcheting up of US&nbsp;sanctions against it.

By engaging in hybrid warfare, Iran appeared to be disrupting trade flows through the Strait, raising diplomatic stakes in the process.

Notably, in June 2019 attacks on Japanese and Norwegian-owned oil tankers coincided with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Tehran. Iran denied any involvement, but the US&nbsp;released video footage it said showed Iranian special forces removing an unexploded mine from one of the tanker’s hulls. If Iran was behind the attacks, it could have been a signal to Japan and China that they need to pressure the Trump administration to ease its sanctions against Iran – or risk disruptions to vital oil and gas exports to Asia transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Could Iran close the strait?

In my view, Iran would certainly have trouble stopping all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Modern cargo vessels are massive and difficult to disable. Unlike in the 1980s, most oil tankers now have double hulls, making them harder to sink. Furthermore, earlier this year the US assembled a multinational coalition to monitor and respond to threats to commercial shipping in the strait.

Iran will also be wary of the impact that closing the Strait of Hormuz could have on its relations with important economic partners, such as China. It is estimated that 76 per cent of crude oil passing through the waterway is destined for Asian markets, with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore among the largest markets.

In the past both the US and Iran have pivoted back to diplomatic solutions when tensions have become too high, suggesting that neither side wants to see the conflict escalate from hybrid warfare into a full-blown war.

 
(Rockford Weitz is Professor of Practice &amp; Director, Fletcher Maritime Studies Program, The Fletcher School, Tufts University) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-iran-us-tensions-mean-troubled-waters-ahead-in-the-strait-of-hormuz-129508">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

By Rockford Weitz Soaring tensions between Iran and the United States have reignited fears that the Strait of Hormuz could become a flashpoint as Tehran responds to the killing of its top general.

By Rockford Weitz Soaring tensions between Iran and the United States have reignited fears that the Strait of Hormuz could become a flashpoint as Tehran responds to the killing of its top general. Oil prices climbed on news of the fatal airstrike, reflecting concern that any fallout could disrupt shipping in the narrow seaway through which 21 per cent of the world’s crude oil passes. Meanwhile, the US Maritime Administration issued an alert over potential Iranian action against “Maritime interests in the region” and the UK announced that the Royal Navy would resume escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz as a precaution. As a researcher who studies strategic maritime chokepoints like this one in the Middle East, I have seen how past skirmishes in this waterway have fit into Iran’s use of hybrid warfare – unconventional tactics that achieve strategic goals without triggering conventional military retaliation. In fact, Iranian leaders will likely feel tremendous political pressure to ratchet up maritime hybrid warfare in response to the drone strike that killed the general. A 21-mile-wide waterway This 21-mile-wide channel connects the Indian Ocean with the Gulf. For all of recorded history, it has connected Arab and Persian civilisations with the Indian subcontinent and Pacific Asia. For example, before the rise of European seaborne empires in the 15th and 16th centuries, porcelain from China and spices from the Indochina peninsula often passed through the strait on the way to Central Asia and Europe. Today the Strait of Hormuz separates Iran from the countries of Oman and the United Arab Emirates, which have strong military ties with the United States. All shipping traffic from energy-rich Gulf countries converges in the strait, including crude oil and liquefied natural gas exports from Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This maritime chokepoint became an arena of conflict during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Each side in the so-called “Tanker War” tried to sink the other’s energy exports. To avoid being targeted, Kuwaiti oil tankers were reflagged under the US shipping registry, obscuring their true ownership. Although crude oil continued to flow, marine insurance rates for vessels operating in the strait spiked by as much as 400 per cent. Why is the strait a concern now? The US killing of General Qasem Soleimani has sparked fears that Iran could take action in the Strait of Hormuz as part of a retaliatory move – as they have threatened before. Recent tensions in the Strait of Hormuz arose after the Trump administration’s decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018. When Iran struck that accord in 2015 with the US, UK, Russia, France, China, Germany and the European Union, it agreed to restrict its nuclear development in exchange for lifting economic sanctions against it. By July 2018, Iran had threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to retaliate against the ratcheting up of US sanctions against it. By engaging in hybrid warfare, Iran appeared to be disrupting trade flows through the Strait, raising diplomatic stakes in the process. Notably, in June 2019 attacks on Japanese and Norwegian-owned oil tankers coincided with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Tehran. Iran denied any involvement, but the US released video footage it said showed Iranian special forces removing an unexploded mine from one of the tanker’s hulls. If Iran was behind the attacks, it could have been a signal to Japan and China that they need to pressure the Trump administration to ease its sanctions against Iran – or risk disruptions to vital oil and gas exports to Asia transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Could Iran close the strait? In my view, Iran would certainly have trouble stopping all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Modern cargo vessels are massive and difficult to disable. Unlike in the 1980s, most oil tankers now have double hulls, making them harder to sink. Furthermore, earlier this year the US assembled a multinational coalition to monitor and respond to threats to commercial shipping in the strait. Iran will also be wary of the impact that closing the Strait of Hormuz could have on its relations with important economic partners, such as China. It is estimated that 76 per cent of crude oil passing through the waterway is destined for Asian markets, with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore among the largest markets. In the past both the US and Iran have pivoted back to diplomatic solutions when tensions have become too high, suggesting that neither side wants to see the conflict escalate from hybrid warfare into a full-blown war. (Rockford Weitz is Professor of Practice & Director, Fletcher Maritime Studies Program, The Fletcher School, Tufts University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Could Iran-US tensions mean troubled waters ahead in the Strait of Hormuz?

The biggest question across the world right now is Iran retaliating against the US. The missile attacks on Iraqi bases hosting US personnel is Iran's revenge for the killing of Qasem Soleimani.

Experts say that this was aimed at satisfying the domestic audience in Tehran.&nbsp;

With missile attacks, Iran's Supreme Leader has used a dangerous language, "Slap on the face of the US, but such military actions are not enough".

Iran's strikes were highly symbolic. It happened around the same time as Soleimani's killing on Friday - 1.30 am.

Like Donald Trump, many Iranian officials tweeted pictures of the national flag. And Iranian media is hailing the strikes, but there is no clarity on the casualties.

Upon closer look, it is clear that Iran targetted bases that were on high alert. Foreign Minister of Iran says that the strikes were in 'self-defence' and 'within the boundaries of international law'.

Meanwhile, after the attacks, President Trump tweeted "All is well", "So Far So Good". He also highlighted America's military might.

The 'All is Well' comment does not mean that the US will not attack Iran if provoked further. Right now, there is a chance for both the parties to de-escalate the conflict.&nbsp;

But the question is, will the US take that chance? Will Iran refrain from further attacks?

These are the important questions, but it is unwise to look for clear answers at this juncture. There are many reasons for this lack of clarity.

First, Iran did not show any regard for Iraq's sovereignty. This could be a sign of things to come.

Iran runs many proxy wars in the region outside the range of the US counter strikes - the Houthis in Yemen,&nbsp;Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Iran could initiate conflicts in these regions simultaneously. Second, Iran can continue with its typical dangerous tactics, like rocket strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and cyber warfare.

Three, if US President Donald Trump is unpredictable, then Iran's Supreme Commander Khamenei wants more revenge.

While most countries have urged both the countries to calm down, the chances of a full-blown conflict remain at large. Israel has given its complete backing to the US.

But now, it is a game of who-blinks-first. Iran wants to end the presence of America in the region, but Trump won't take any attack from Iran lying down.

Both the sides have an option now to de-escalate, but the rhetoric from Tehran is worrisome - for regional peace, global peace and global economy.

(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)&nbsp;

The biggest question across the world right now is Iran retaliating against the US. The missile attacks on Iraqi bases hosting US personnel is Iran's revenge for the killing of Qasem Soleimani.

The biggest question across the world right now is Iran retaliating against the US. The missile attacks on Iraqi bases hosting US personnel is Iran's revenge for the killing of Qasem Soleimani. Experts say that this was aimed at satisfying the domestic audience in Tehran. With missile attacks, Iran's Supreme Leader has used a dangerous language, "Slap on the face of the US, but such military actions are not enough". Iran's strikes were highly symbolic. It happened around the same time as Soleimani's killing on Friday - 1.30 am. Like Donald Trump, many Iranian officials tweeted pictures of the national flag. And Iranian media is hailing the strikes, but there is no clarity on the casualties. Upon closer look, it is clear that Iran targetted bases that were on high alert. Foreign Minister of Iran says that the strikes were in 'self-defence' and 'within the boundaries of international law'. Meanwhile, after the attacks, President Trump tweeted "All is well", "So Far So Good". He also highlighted America's military might. The 'All is Well' comment does not mean that the US will not attack Iran if provoked further. Right now, there is a chance for both the parties to de-escalate the conflict. But the question is, will the US take that chance? Will Iran refrain from further attacks? These are the important questions, but it is unwise to look for clear answers at this juncture. There are many reasons for this lack of clarity. First, Iran did not show any regard for Iraq's sovereignty. This could be a sign of things to come. Iran runs many proxy wars in the region outside the range of the US counter strikes - the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran could initiate conflicts in these regions simultaneously. Second, Iran can continue with its typical dangerous tactics, like rocket strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and cyber warfare. Three, if US President Donald Trump is unpredictable, then Iran's Supreme Commander Khamenei wants more revenge. While most countries have urged both the countries to calm down, the chances of a full-blown conflict remain at large. Israel has given its complete backing to the US. But now, it is a game of who-blinks-first. Iran wants to end the presence of America in the region, but Trump won't take any attack from Iran lying down. Both the sides have an option now to de-escalate, but the rhetoric from Tehran is worrisome - for regional peace, global peace and global economy. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

WION Edit: US-Iran conflict - what's next?

The biggest worry across the world right now is about West Asia. Will Iran's missile attacks on US military bases in Iraq bring Iran & the U.S. closer to war? Or will both the side claim victory and end this conflict? On WionEdit MollyGambhir explains. #WIONEdit #US #Iran

WION Edit: Will US-Iran tensions escalate further?

The tensions in West Asia bring bad news for businessmen. Several international airlines have been forced to re-route their flights, prices of oil have skyrocketed and India too is feeling the pinch.

Investors are rattled by the volatility in the stock markets and if the crisis continues, it could trigger more trouble for a slowing global economy.

The escalating tensions are driving fears of a recession, investors are worried about the prospect of a conflict. America's move to kill Iran's most powerful General Qasem Soleimani has shaken up the global economy.

If a war-like situation comes up, airlines will have to spend more on insurance as well. They would need to pay anywhere from $18 thousand to $40 thousand more per aircraft every month.

Assurances from the organisation of petroleum exporting countries or OPEC helped in stabilising the prices. But if the war clouds remain, global oil prices could rise again.

Such a situation would be bad news for India -&nbsp;a country that imports more than 80 per cent of its oil needs.&nbsp;

A $10 dollar increase in crude prices would increase India's monthly import bill by $1.5 billion whereas retail inflation would rise by around 0.4 per cent.

The likelihood of full-blown conflict is a far cry as of today. But, the prevailing tensions are already hurting the bottom line of several global businesses around the world.

The tensions in West Asia bring bad news for businessmen. Several international airlines have been forced to re-route their flights, prices of oil have skyrocketed and India too is feeling the pinch.

The tensions in West Asia bring bad news for businessmen. Several international airlines have been forced to re-route their flights, prices of oil have skyrocketed and India too is feeling the pinch. Investors are rattled by the volatility in the stock markets and if the crisis continues, it could trigger more trouble for a slowing global economy. The escalating tensions are driving fears of a recession, investors are worried about the prospect of a conflict. America's move to kill Iran's most powerful General Qasem Soleimani has shaken up the global economy. If a war-like situation comes up, airlines will have to spend more on insurance as well. They would need to pay anywhere from $18 thousand to $40 thousand more per aircraft every month. Assurances from the organisation of petroleum exporting countries or OPEC helped in stabilising the prices. But if the war clouds remain, global oil prices could rise again. Such a situation would be bad news for India - a country that imports more than 80 per cent of its oil needs. A $10 dollar increase in crude prices would increase India's monthly import bill by $1.5 billion whereas retail inflation would rise by around 0.4 per cent. The likelihood of full-blown conflict is a far cry as of today. But, the prevailing tensions are already hurting the bottom line of several global businesses around the world.

Explained: How US-Iran tensions impact the economy

The recent Golden Globe Awards handed out the Best Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie to Russell Crowe for his role in 'The Loudest Voice'. It is the saga of Fox News, the Rupert Murdoch owned American TV news-from-the-Right channel. And, of course, its pit bull-like head honcho Roger Ailes, played by a wonderfully made up Crowe. &nbsp;

When it was launched, all the other News TV channels in America were competing for the left-of-centre eyeballs, leaving the entire 50 of the field that spoke to middle-America, open to Fox. And unlike in other countries that favoured newspapers, Americans preferred to get their news from 24x7 TV channels. Fox News soon topped the charts in cable news TV.&nbsp;

Though, The Loudest Voice TV serial takes you back to 9/11 and the George W Bush- Dick Cheney era, it does remind you of one thing more. It reminds you that the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) charge put on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was a complete myth. &nbsp;

America decided to use 9/11 to effect regime change in Iraq, a matter treated as 'unfinished business' from the term of George Walker Bush, Dubya’s father. Fox was privy to this government objective and worked hard to propagate its merits.&nbsp;

Iraq was a Sunni minority-run country under Saddam and his Ba’ath Party, but quite unrelated to America’s &nbsp;9/11, or the Al Qaeda that perpetrated it. If anything, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were the authors of 9/11 and not Iraq. But America was not keen to put them in the dock owing to overlapping and multifarious common interests.&nbsp;

Nevertheless, today, when we see war clouds hovering over West Asia after the US drone strike killing of General Qasem Soleimani five days ago, one has to wonder why it was done at this time. What intelligence input does America have? Soleimani, a military man, was the de facto no. 2 of Iran.&nbsp; &nbsp;

The simple answer is that Soleimani was held responsible as the mastermind of multiple terrorist strikes against Americans. But, his elimination poses a threat to the stability of the present regime. That the strike took place outside Baghdad airport is remarkable. And while an unstable, unhappy, ruined, and insurgency-torn Iraq is now under a Shi’ite administration- it is not doing very well. But it is close to Iran, a country that Saddam fought an eight-year war within his time. &nbsp;

Iran has been firing missiles ever since at the US bases in Iraq. Present reports mostly state that these Iranian strikes have not resulted in the loss of Allied lives. Others, from Iran, indicate 80 American soldiers have been killed. &nbsp;

President Trump has not addressed the nation on his next move as yet, apart from debunking the report of casualties by tweeting “All is well”. &nbsp;

But the Russians and Chinese are warning against retaliatory strikes by America. Russia has raised the bogey of nuclear war. Britain has spoken up in support of the American action. Israel is in strong support. France and Germany too are advising caution. As is India, eyeing the 5 per cent escalation in petroleum prices already. Iran has asked India to help in the de-escalation process. Other international voices too, from the Gulf and elsewhere, almost unanimously, are clamouring for de-escalation.&nbsp;

But what does America want? It eliminated Soleimani unilaterally despite the near-certainty of strong reaction. The desired end result, backed no doubt by Saudi Arabia and Israel, from the near region, is to see the back of the Khamenei regime. &nbsp;

This is not the first time the West has intervened to bring about regime change in Iran. It installed the Shah when his predecessor nationalised the oil fields. Much later, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini broke the link of American influence. Now, successor Ali Khamenei and his cohorts must go, to be replaced by an order more favourable to the US and its friends. &nbsp;

The economic sanctions placed on Iran by the US and its allies to stop it going nuclear are hurting the ordinary people. Most of Iran’s 80 million are fed up with its rulers. As a consequence, there have been large protests, put down harshly. The grass-roots in Iran may be quite ready and ripe to get rid of the puritanical mullahs, but they don’t have the strength to do it by themselves. &nbsp;

America’s attempt to bring about regime change by military means in different countries has generally succeeded; but not in bringing a consequent peace and prosperity to the natives. However, this has never stopped it from pushing ahead with its perceived strategic objectives.&nbsp;

The main one, with regard to Iran, is to stop it becoming a nuclear power fearing that this will make it unmanageable. But is it too late? What was that seismic activity near Iran’s nuclear weapons development site? &nbsp;

Will the other major powers intervene militarily on the side of Iran if America attacks it? It seems very unlikely because both China and Russia cannot afford to precipitate war against America. &nbsp;

As a consequence, while oil prices will be very volatile going forward, President Trump will probably be able to attack Iranian strategic assets and nuclear facilities and drive the current regime out of office, if it acts quickly. And yes, undertaking this aggression successfully will see to it that President Trump will be re-elected to his second term. &nbsp;

The impeachment drama is already deleted from the news cycles, and most recent opinion polls show an uptick in support for President Donald Trump. &nbsp; &nbsp; 
 
(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The recent Golden Globe Awards handed out the Best Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie to Russell Crowe for his role in 'The Loudest Voice'. It is the saga of Fox News, the Rupert Murdoch owned American TV news-from-the-Right channel.

The recent Golden Globe Awards handed out the Best Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie to Russell Crowe for his role in 'The Loudest Voice'. It is the saga of Fox News, the Rupert Murdoch owned American TV news-from-the-Right channel. And, of course, its pit bull-like head honcho Roger Ailes, played by a wonderfully made up Crowe. When it was launched, all the other News TV channels in America were competing for the left-of-centre eyeballs, leaving the entire 50 of the field that spoke to middle-America, open to Fox. And unlike in other countries that favoured newspapers, Americans preferred to get their news from 24x7 TV channels. Fox News soon topped the charts in cable news TV. Though, The Loudest Voice TV serial takes you back to 9/11 and the George W Bush- Dick Cheney era, it does remind you of one thing more. It reminds you that the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) charge put on Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was a complete myth. America decided to use 9/11 to effect regime change in Iraq, a matter treated as 'unfinished business' from the term of George Walker Bush, Dubya’s father. Fox was privy to this government objective and worked hard to propagate its merits. Iraq was a Sunni minority-run country under Saddam and his Ba’ath Party, but quite unrelated to America’s 9/11, or the Al Qaeda that perpetrated it. If anything, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were the authors of 9/11 and not Iraq. But America was not keen to put them in the dock owing to overlapping and multifarious common interests. Nevertheless, today, when we see war clouds hovering over West Asia after the US drone strike killing of General Qasem Soleimani five days ago, one has to wonder why it was done at this time. What intelligence input does America have? Soleimani, a military man, was the de facto no. 2 of Iran. The simple answer is that Soleimani was held responsible as the mastermind of multiple terrorist strikes against Americans. But, his elimination poses a threat to the stability of the present regime. That the strike took place outside Baghdad airport is remarkable. And while an unstable, unhappy, ruined, and insurgency-torn Iraq is now under a Shi’ite administration- it is not doing very well. But it is close to Iran, a country that Saddam fought an eight-year war within his time. Iran has been firing missiles ever since at the US bases in Iraq. Present reports mostly state that these Iranian strikes have not resulted in the loss of Allied lives. Others, from Iran, indicate 80 American soldiers have been killed. President Trump has not addressed the nation on his next move as yet, apart from debunking the report of casualties by tweeting “All is well”. But the Russians and Chinese are warning against retaliatory strikes by America. Russia has raised the bogey of nuclear war. Britain has spoken up in support of the American action. Israel is in strong support. France and Germany too are advising caution. As is India, eyeing the 5 per cent escalation in petroleum prices already. Iran has asked India to help in the de-escalation process. Other international voices too, from the Gulf and elsewhere, almost unanimously, are clamouring for de-escalation. But what does America want? It eliminated Soleimani unilaterally despite the near-certainty of strong reaction. The desired end result, backed no doubt by Saudi Arabia and Israel, from the near region, is to see the back of the Khamenei regime. This is not the first time the West has intervened to bring about regime change in Iran. It installed the Shah when his predecessor nationalised the oil fields. Much later, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini broke the link of American influence. Now, successor Ali Khamenei and his cohorts must go, to be replaced by an order more favourable to the US and its friends. The economic sanctions placed on Iran by the US and its allies to stop it going nuclear are hurting the ordinary people. Most of Iran’s 80 million are fed up with its rulers. As a consequence, there have been large protests, put down harshly. The grass-roots in Iran may be quite ready and ripe to get rid of the puritanical mullahs, but they don’t have the strength to do it by themselves. America’s attempt to bring about regime change by military means in different countries has generally succeeded; but not in bringing a consequent peace and prosperity to the natives. However, this has never stopped it from pushing ahead with its perceived strategic objectives. The main one, with regard to Iran, is to stop it becoming a nuclear power fearing that this will make it unmanageable. But is it too late? What was that seismic activity near Iran’s nuclear weapons development site? Will the other major powers intervene militarily on the side of Iran if America attacks it? It seems very unlikely because both China and Russia cannot afford to precipitate war against America. As a consequence, while oil prices will be very volatile going forward, President Trump will probably be able to attack Iranian strategic assets and nuclear facilities and drive the current regime out of office, if it acts quickly. And yes, undertaking this aggression successfully will see to it that President Trump will be re-elected to his second term. The impeachment drama is already deleted from the news cycles, and most recent opinion polls show an uptick in support for President Donald Trump. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US wants no less than regime change in Iran

The United Arab Emirates' energy minister said on Wednesday he saw no immediate risk to oil passing through the vital gateway of the Strait of Hormuz after Iran attacked bases housing US&nbsp;forces in Iraq.

Iranian officials have said the missile strikes were a response to Friday's killing of top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-fires-missiles-at-us-bases-in-iraq-272811">Also Read: Iran fires ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq</a>

The situation is not a war, and what is happening now should not be exaggerated, Suhail al-Mazrouei said on the sidelines of a conference in Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE, an OPEC producer.

"We will not see a war," he added. "This is an escalation between the United States, which is an ally, and Iran, which is a neighbour, and the last thing we want is more tension in the Middle East."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/at-least-50-killed-in-stampede-at-iranian-generals-funeral-burial-postponed-272796">Also Read: At least 50 killed in stampede at Iranian general's funeral, burial postponed</a>

Oil prices were about 1% higher on Wednesday, but well below highs hit in a frenetic start to the trading day after the missile attacks raised the spectre of a spiralling conflict and disruption to crude flows.

Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh was quoted by the semi-official ISNA news agency as saying on Wednesday that Tehran was benefiting from rising oil prices, and also called on the United States to quit the region.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/all-is-well-so-far-so-good-says-trump-after-irans-missile-strikes-at-us-bases-in-iraq-272818">Also Read: All is well, so far, so good, says Trump after Iran's missile strikes at US bases in Iraq</a>

"The trend of oil prices is up and this benefits Iran ... Americans should stop disturbing the region and let the people of the region live," Zanganeh said.

OPEC's Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo told the conference in Abu Dhabi that oil facilities in Iraq, the second-biggest producer in OPEC, were secured and output was continuing.

He said global spare oil capacity stood at around 3-3.5 million barrels per day (bpd), with the majority held by Saudi Arabia, the top producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

Watch:&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/iran-threatens-to-attack-us-allies-272909/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

No supply shortage seen

The UAE's Mazrouei said OPEC would respond to any possible oil shortages if needed, within its "limitations". But he saw no sign of a supply shortage, with healthy demand and global oil inventories hovering around the 5-year average.

"We are not forecasting any shortage of supply unless there is a catastrophic escalation, which we don't see," he said.

Barkindo said he was confident that leaders in the Middle East were doing everything possible to restore normal conditions.

The region was shaken last year by attacks on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz and an assault on Saudi energy plants that initially halved the kingdom's crude output.

Washington and Riyadh blamed their common foe Iran, also an OPEC member, for those strikes, a charge Tehran denied.

Barkindo said the forecast for global demand growth was around 1 million BPD, adding this was "not robust and not alarming".

Asked what message he would send to U.S. President Donald Trump, Barkindo told the gathering that the United States' emergence as a leading oil and gas producer should carry shared responsibility for energy market stability.

"The continued task of the OPEC+ to maintain stable oil markets on a sustainable basis is a shared responsibility of all producers including the US," Barkindo said.

"OPEC alone can't shoulder that responsibility. We invite the United States to join us in this noble objective," he added.

OPEC and its allies, a grouping is known as OPEC+, has been capping production since 2017 to avert oversupply and support prices. The US is not part of this oil supply management agreement.

The United Arab Emirates' energy minister said on Wednesday he saw no immediate risk to oil passing through the vital gateway of the Strait of Hormuz after Iran attacked bases housing US forces in Iraq.

The United Arab Emirates' energy minister said on Wednesday he saw no immediate risk to oil passing through the vital gateway of the Strait of Hormuz after Iran attacked bases housing US forces in Iraq. Iranian officials have said the missile strikes were a response to Friday's killing of top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. Also Read: Iran fires ballistic missiles at US bases in Iraq The situation is not a war, and what is happening now should not be exaggerated, Suhail al-Mazrouei said on the sidelines of a conference in Abu Dhabi, capital of the UAE, an OPEC producer. "We will not see a war," he added. "This is an escalation between the United States, which is an ally, and Iran, which is a neighbour, and the last thing we want is more tension in the Middle East." Also Read: At least 50 killed in stampede at Iranian general's funeral, burial postponed Oil prices were about 1% higher on Wednesday, but well below highs hit in a frenetic start to the trading day after the missile attacks raised the spectre of a spiralling conflict and disruption to crude flows. Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zanganeh was quoted by the semi-official ISNA news agency as saying on Wednesday that Tehran was benefiting from rising oil prices, and also called on the United States to quit the region. Also Read: All is well, so far, so good, says Trump after Iran's missile strikes at US bases in Iraq "The trend of oil prices is up and this benefits Iran ... Americans should stop disturbing the region and let the people of the region live," Zanganeh said. OPEC's Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo told the conference in Abu Dhabi that oil facilities in Iraq, the second-biggest producer in OPEC, were secured and output was continuing. He said global spare oil capacity stood at around 3-3.5 million barrels per day (bpd), with the majority held by Saudi Arabia, the top producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Watch: No supply shortage seen The UAE's Mazrouei said OPEC would respond to any possible oil shortages if needed, within its "limitations". But he saw no sign of a supply shortage, with healthy demand and global oil inventories hovering around the 5-year average. "We are not forecasting any shortage of supply unless there is a catastrophic escalation, which we don't see," he said. Barkindo said he was confident that leaders in the Middle East were doing everything possible to restore normal conditions. The region was shaken last year by attacks on oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz and an assault on Saudi energy plants that initially halved the kingdom's crude output. Washington and Riyadh blamed their common foe Iran, also an OPEC member, for those strikes, a charge Tehran denied. Barkindo said the forecast for global demand growth was around 1 million BPD, adding this was "not robust and not alarming". Asked what message he would send to U.S. President Donald Trump, Barkindo told the gathering that the United States' emergence as a leading oil and gas producer should carry shared responsibility for energy market stability. "The continued task of the OPEC+ to maintain stable oil markets on a sustainable basis is a shared responsibility of all producers including the US," Barkindo said. "OPEC alone can't shoulder that responsibility. We invite the United States to join us in this noble objective," he added. OPEC and its allies, a grouping is known as OPEC+, has been capping production since 2017 to avert oversupply and support prices. The US is not part of this oil supply management agreement.

United Arab Emirates sees no immediate risk to oil flow through Strait of Hormuz

This segment of WION brings to you top stories of the morning from across the globe. Watch this video to get updated with the latest information.

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - January 07, 2020

The US triggered a geopolitical earthquake by killing a top Iranian General. The whole world is now bracing for the fallout.&nbsp;

World War 3 has been the top trend globally and not without reason. There is a threat of a major escalation.

There's no denying the situation is precarious. People over the world are concerned if there will be a war, and if their country will be sucked into it.

The killing of Qasem Soleimani is no small matter. The US may have labelled him a terrorist, but unlike other terrorists America has killed - Soleimani was a state actor.

He was part of a legitimate government - a cult figure and his killing is an attack on a government. Iran has a difficult needle to the thread and its choices are limited.

Not acting is not an option, but the action comes at a cost. And frankly, Iran doesn't have the money.

The Iranian government cannot afford a war with a country like America. The United States has the world's biggest and best-equipped military force.

The US spends more on defence than any other country in the world and it is number one in the rank of power.

Iran which is slowed by sanctions stands at the 13th position. The military budget of the US is more than six hundred billion dollars.

Iran has a military budget of fourteen billion dollars. The US has over one million active personnel as compared to Iran which has over five hundred thousand active military personnel.

So there will be counter-strikes but they may not qualify as a traditional all-out war.&nbsp;

Experts say Iran will go for American soft targets. As for America, it may not have the appetite for a straightforward invasion from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq.

America has failed miserably every time it has tried to capture territory. It's at best, a very effective disruptor.

The definition of war today has changed, conflicts come in many shapes and with deadlier consequences.

So to answer the question we began with - will this lead to the third world war? No, but that doesn't mean there won't be bloodshed and casualties. 
 
(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The US triggered a geopolitical earthquake by killing a top Iranian General. The whole world is now bracing for the fallout. World War 3 has been the top trend globally and not without reason.

The US triggered a geopolitical earthquake by killing a top Iranian General. The whole world is now bracing for the fallout. World War 3 has been the top trend globally and not without reason. There is a threat of a major escalation. There's no denying the situation is precarious. People over the world are concerned if there will be a war, and if their country will be sucked into it. The killing of Qasem Soleimani is no small matter. The US may have labelled him a terrorist, but unlike other terrorists America has killed - Soleimani was a state actor. He was part of a legitimate government - a cult figure and his killing is an attack on a government. Iran has a difficult needle to the thread and its choices are limited. Not acting is not an option, but the action comes at a cost. And frankly, Iran doesn't have the money. The Iranian government cannot afford a war with a country like America. The United States has the world's biggest and best-equipped military force. The US spends more on defence than any other country in the world and it is number one in the rank of power. Iran which is slowed by sanctions stands at the 13th position. The military budget of the US is more than six hundred billion dollars. Iran has a military budget of fourteen billion dollars. The US has over one million active personnel as compared to Iran which has over five hundred thousand active military personnel. So there will be counter-strikes but they may not qualify as a traditional all-out war. Experts say Iran will go for American soft targets. As for America, it may not have the appetite for a straightforward invasion from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq. America has failed miserably every time it has tried to capture territory. It's at best, a very effective disruptor. The definition of war today has changed, conflicts come in many shapes and with deadlier consequences. So to answer the question we began with - will this lead to the third world war? No, but that doesn't mean there won't be bloodshed and casualties. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

WION Edit: Are US and Iran on the brink of war?

Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force, was killed along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iraq's Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF, or Hashd al-Shaabi), an Iran-backed umbrella organisation comprising several militias. #Iran #US #Soleimanikilling

Aftermath of Soleimani Killing

Trump Threatens Iranian Cultural Sites, and Warns of Sanctions on Iraq. The president threatened Iran over potential retaliation for the death of a top general.

US-Iran conflict: Trump warns Iran of Major Retaliation

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pakistan-saudi-foreign-minister-faisal-bin-farhan-al-saud-to-visit-today-270275">Faisal Bin Farhan Al Saud</a>&nbsp;said on Monday the kingdom does not want to see a further escalation of tensions in the region at a "very dangerous moment", following Friday's killing by a US&nbsp;drone strike of Iran's most prominent military commander and Quds force head, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/latest-updates-on-iran-general-qassem-soleimanis-death-272457">Qasem Soleimani</a>.

"We are very keen that the situation in the region doesn't escalate any further. It's certainly a very dangerous moment and we have to be conscious of the risks and dangers not just to the region but to wider global security," Prince Faisal bin Farhan told a news briefing in Riyadh.

"We hope that all actors take all the steps necessary to prevent any further escalation and any provocation," he said.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Faisal Bin Farhan Al Saud said on Monday the kingdom does not want to see a further escalation of tensions in the region at a "very dangerous moment", following Friday's killing by a US drone strike of Iran's most prominent military commander and Quds force head, Qasem Soleimani.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Faisal Bin Farhan Al Saud said on Monday the kingdom does not want to see a further escalation of tensions in the region at a "very dangerous moment", following Friday's killing by a US drone strike of Iran's most prominent military commander and Quds force head, Qasem Soleimani. "We are very keen that the situation in the region doesn't escalate any further. It's certainly a very dangerous moment and we have to be conscious of the risks and dangers not just to the region but to wider global security," Prince Faisal bin Farhan told a news briefing in Riyadh. "We hope that all actors take all the steps necessary to prevent any further escalation and any provocation," he said.

Saudi Arabia appeals for 'calm' after killing of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani

International law may not be a major consideration in debates about the US killing of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, yet the legality of the assassination could prove to have long-term consequences for whether the rule of law or the law of the jungle dominates a new world order.

The Trump administration has asserted that killing Soleimani was necessary to avert an imminent attack on US targets that allegedly was being planned by Soleimani and Abdul Mahdi al-Muhandis - the leader of an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia - who also died in the attack.

The assertion, yet to be backed up by evidence, served to justify the attack and fend off allegations that the targetted killing violated both the US and international law.

The implication was that Soleimani’s death would thwart an unspecified imminent attack and stop the Iranians in their tracks, an assumption that has little foundation in reality given Iran’s track record, most recently its refusal to buckle under following the imposition in 2018 of harsh US economic sanctions, some of the harshest ever imposed.

The notion that the killing of Soleimani amounted to rule of the jungle rather than rule of law was reinforced by assertions by Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi that he had been asked by Trump to mediate with Iran and that the Iranian military leader had been carrying Iran’s response to a Saudi initiative to defuse tension when he was assassinated.

Abdul Mahdi’s allegation that Soleimani was involved in efforts to dial down tensions came in a debate in Parliament in which lawmakers called in a resolution for the removal from Iraq of foreign forces, the bulk of which are Americans.

Abdul Mahdi’s assertion that Iran was responding to a Saudi initiative was all the more noteworthy given that the kingdom had reportedly recently put its indirect outreach to Iran on hold as anti-government protesters in Iraq and Lebanon targeted Iranian influence in their countries.

“Americans, once the most prominent proponents of international law as the regulator of relations between nations, have now fully validated the law of the jungle. We are now likely to experience it," said Chas W Freeman Jr, a former career US State Department official in an email to a private mailing list.

Conservative commentator Robert Kagan warned in a book published last year, bemoaning America’s withdrawal as an enforcer of international law, a notion challenged by an array of critics, that chaos was the world’s historical norm. “The jungle will grow back, if we let it,” Kagan argued.

The sense that Trump, like many of the world’s civilisational leaders, has no regard for international law was evident, particularly to Iranians, in his threat to attack Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliates for the killing of Soleimani.

Trump did not specify what he meant by cultural. Some analysts suggested the President may have been referring to symbols like the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic republic.

Legal experts nonetheless warned that attacks on cultural sites amount to a war crime.

With millions in the streets to welcome the return of Soleimani’s body, Iranians used the hashtag #IranianCulturalSites to respond to the threat by posting online pictures of mosques, museums, monuments, archaeological sites, and other Iranian architectural marvels.

Similarly, with Iraq perceiving the US strikes as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, Iraqis may, alongside Iranians, be one of the few who, perhaps self-serving, factor adherence to international law in their debates.

In line with the comments of Messrs. Freeman and Kagan, the legal aspects of &nbsp;Soleimani’s killing take on a significance that goes far beyond the Middle East in an environment in which civilisational leaders like India’s Narendra Modi, China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Myanmar’s Win Myint flout international law with impunity.

Violations of international law grounded in the propagation of concepts of a civilizational rather than a nation-state that defines its borders not in terms of internationally recognised frontiers, but blurry lines of civilisational reach, have occurred in recent years fast and furious.

Iraqi assertions of a US violation of sovereignty echo Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine. Trump has ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions by unilaterally recognising Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Myint stands accused of ethnic cleansing by the United Nations that has prompted hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. Massive evidence documents Jinping’s authorisation of the brutal repression of Turkic Muslims in the troubled north-western Chinese province of Xinjiang while Modi appears to be progressively disenfranchising his country’s Muslim minority.

For his part, Soleimani is believed to have been responsible for numerous incidents of political violence, including a 2012 attack on tourists in Bulgaria executed by a Lebanese suicide bomber. Five of the six casualties were Israelis.

Adopting the principle of might is right, civilizational leaders’ abandonment of international law, including guarantees of basic and minority rights, risks creating a global jungle in which wars, political violence, marginalisation of ethnic and religious groups, and destabilising&nbsp;mass migration contribute to rule of the jungle rather than rule of law.

So do Western approaches adopted almost two decades ago in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

Said at the time Robert Cooper, a British diplomat, former advisor to prime minister Tony Blair, a current advisor to the European Commission on Myanmar, and a proponent of the doctrine of new liberal imperialism who in 2011 defended Bahrain’s brutal repression of a popular uprising:

If the world has a civilized core that deserves lawful conduct, there also is a barbarous periphery that warrants “rougher methods of an earlier era… Postmodern states operate on the basis of laws and open co-operative security” but “in the jungle, one must use the laws of the jungle.”

Some two decades after Cooper wrote those words, the jungle rather than the rule of law threatens to become the norm, putting the global community on a dangerous and slippery slope.

(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

International law may not be a major consideration in debates about the US killing of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, yet the legality of the assassination could prove to have long-term consequences for whether the rule of law or the law of the jungle dominates a new world order.

International law may not be a major consideration in debates about the US killing of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, yet the legality of the assassination could prove to have long-term consequences for whether the rule of law or the law of the jungle dominates a new world order. The Trump administration has asserted that killing Soleimani was necessary to avert an imminent attack on US targets that allegedly was being planned by Soleimani and Abdul Mahdi al-Muhandis - the leader of an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia - who also died in the attack. The assertion, yet to be backed up by evidence, served to justify the attack and fend off allegations that the targetted killing violated both the US and international law. The implication was that Soleimani’s death would thwart an unspecified imminent attack and stop the Iranians in their tracks, an assumption that has little foundation in reality given Iran’s track record, most recently its refusal to buckle under following the imposition in 2018 of harsh US economic sanctions, some of the harshest ever imposed. The notion that the killing of Soleimani amounted to rule of the jungle rather than rule of law was reinforced by assertions by Iraqi prime minister Adel Abdul Mahdi that he had been asked by Trump to mediate with Iran and that the Iranian military leader had been carrying Iran’s response to a Saudi initiative to defuse tension when he was assassinated. Abdul Mahdi’s allegation that Soleimani was involved in efforts to dial down tensions came in a debate in Parliament in which lawmakers called in a resolution for the removal from Iraq of foreign forces, the bulk of which are Americans. Abdul Mahdi’s assertion that Iran was responding to a Saudi initiative was all the more noteworthy given that the kingdom had reportedly recently put its indirect outreach to Iran on hold as anti-government protesters in Iraq and Lebanon targeted Iranian influence in their countries. “Americans, once the most prominent proponents of international law as the regulator of relations between nations, have now fully validated the law of the jungle. We are now likely to experience it," said Chas W Freeman Jr, a former career US State Department official in an email to a private mailing list. Conservative commentator Robert Kagan warned in a book published last year, bemoaning America’s withdrawal as an enforcer of international law, a notion challenged by an array of critics, that chaos was the world’s historical norm. “The jungle will grow back, if we let it,” Kagan argued. The sense that Trump, like many of the world’s civilisational leaders, has no regard for international law was evident, particularly to Iranians, in his threat to attack Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliates for the killing of Soleimani. Trump did not specify what he meant by cultural. Some analysts suggested the President may have been referring to symbols like the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic republic. Legal experts nonetheless warned that attacks on cultural sites amount to a war crime. With millions in the streets to welcome the return of Soleimani’s body, Iranians used the hashtag #IranianCulturalSites to respond to the threat by posting online pictures of mosques, museums, monuments, archaeological sites, and other Iranian architectural marvels. Similarly, with Iraq perceiving the US strikes as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, Iraqis may, alongside Iranians, be one of the few who, perhaps self-serving, factor adherence to international law in their debates. In line with the comments of Messrs. Freeman and Kagan, the legal aspects of Soleimani’s killing take on a significance that goes far beyond the Middle East in an environment in which civilisational leaders like India’s Narendra Modi, China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Myanmar’s Win Myint flout international law with impunity. Violations of international law grounded in the propagation of concepts of a civilizational rather than a nation-state that defines its borders not in terms of internationally recognised frontiers, but blurry lines of civilisational reach, have occurred in recent years fast and furious. Iraqi assertions of a US violation of sovereignty echo Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine. Trump has ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions by unilaterally recognising Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Myint stands accused of ethnic cleansing by the United Nations that has prompted hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. Massive evidence documents Jinping’s authorisation of the brutal repression of Turkic Muslims in the troubled north-western Chinese province of Xinjiang while Modi appears to be progressively disenfranchising his country’s Muslim minority. For his part, Soleimani is believed to have been responsible for numerous incidents of political violence, including a 2012 attack on tourists in Bulgaria executed by a Lebanese suicide bomber. Five of the six casualties were Israelis. Adopting the principle of might is right, civilizational leaders’ abandonment of international law, including guarantees of basic and minority rights, risks creating a global jungle in which wars, political violence, marginalisation of ethnic and religious groups, and destabilising mass migration contribute to rule of the jungle rather than rule of law. So do Western approaches adopted almost two decades ago in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. Said at the time Robert Cooper, a British diplomat, former advisor to prime minister Tony Blair, a current advisor to the European Commission on Myanmar, and a proponent of the doctrine of new liberal imperialism who in 2011 defended Bahrain’s brutal repression of a popular uprising: If the world has a civilized core that deserves lawful conduct, there also is a barbarous periphery that warrants “rougher methods of an earlier era… Postmodern states operate on the basis of laws and open co-operative security” but “in the jungle, one must use the laws of the jungle.” Some two decades after Cooper wrote those words, the jungle rather than the rule of law threatens to become the norm, putting the global community on a dangerous and slippery slope. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Does the killing of Qasem Soleimani violate international law?

us-iran-0

Us Iran, News on Us Iran, stories on Us Iran, articles on Us Iran, Us Iran stories at Wion, Us Iran news, Us Iran latest news

us iran-0