Javed Ali.
With the announcement of a new US deployment in the Pacific region, great power competition is back on the global forefront. US military was engaged for decades in counter-insurgency operations in the Middle East but policymakers are now faced with a challenge that echoes the post World War II era.
Ashraf Qureshi.
As the world braced for countries picking sides in the escalating situation in the Middle East, the US and Iran have been able to prevent their altercation from expanding into a full-blown war. US and European government sources have revealed that Iran deliberately avoided casualties in its 8 January retaliatory missile attacks on US bases in Iraq.
The attacks were in response to the US killing of Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani who was targeted in a drone strike during his visit to Iraq. After the US’s tight-lipped response to the Iranian missiles hitting its bases in Iraq, speculations made rounds the entire day on the damages suffered by US forces. While the Iranian state-run television claimed the death of 80 US nationals, American officials maintain that there have been no casualties.
Three government sources who spoke to Reuters revealed that Iran deliberately avoided the US casualties so that the situation does not spiral out of control. But at the same time, Iran had to display resolve in the face of the killing of its top General.
A precisely calculated attack with more than a dozen missiles on the Al-Asad airbase and another establishment in Erbil was aimed at giving a message rather than inflicting damage. The missiles hit predetermined parts of the US facilities that were at the time not housing any personnel.
Al-Asad base stations both American and Iraqi forces. Assessing the satellite pictures after the attack, Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California said that the Iranian missiles targeted the American portion of the base. Reuters believes three of the structures that were damaged appear to be aircraft maintenance hangars. A day later, two Russian made Katyusha rockets fell inside Baghdad’s Green Zone – one merely 100 meters from the US Embassy – but there was no claim of responsibility.
The revelation that Iran tried to avoid escalation corroborates with the remarks of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif who stated that Iran took “proportionate measures” in self-defense but was not seeking a war with the US. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had termed the Iranian response a “slap on the face” of the US which was another carefully worded message revealing the intent behind the attack.
In his much-awaited public appearance on the morning after the attack, US President Donald Trump seemed to have paid heed to the growing domestic criticism on the soundness of attacking the Iranian General. Moreover, the message Iran delivered by avoiding casualties had also done its part.
Trump stated that the US does not necessarily have to respond to the attack on its military bases. He termed Iran’s avoidance of casualties as a sign that it was “standing down”. While he did some saber-rattling by speaking of the US’s military prowess, he overruled military action and announced additional economic sanctions without going into their details.
Another highlight of his statement was a call to world powers to quit the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that the US drew unilaterally in 2018. In an encouraging development, he instead demanded a new nuclear with Iran. Under the 2015 deal, Iran was offered relief from sanctions in response to limiting its nuclear deal. Since the US attacked General Soleimani, Iran has announced an end to all its nuclear restrictions.
Immediately after the killing of General Soleimani, support blocs started delineating as world leaders contacted the US and Iran. Russia and China released statements in support of Iran whereas Britain and Israel came out in support of the US while attempting to cool down the temperature.
The conflict had the potential to embroil many more nations as Iran threatened to bomb the Israeli city of Haifa and the Emirati city of Dubai in case of any further US attacks.
Had the conflict morphed into a full-blown war, it would have severely affected the oil supply chains with unstable prices and uncertain shipping routes. The effect on global industries and economies could have spiraled out of control as most countries are already battling slowing growth rates. With sense prevailing on both sides, however, the situation seems under control for the time being.
Update: An earlier version of this article included a section quoting a Canadian source who ruled out foul play in the crash of Ukraine Flight 752. Iran has now admitted to accidentally shooting down the airliner.
Faheem Sarwar.
Russia’s deployment of its Avangard hypersonic missiles does not come as a surprise since the US has already had access to them. This state of the art system is the world’s first and the only known hypersonic weapon. It travels at 27 times the speed of sound and is claimed by Russia to be capable of penetrating the US missile shield.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, the missiles are capable of carrying nuclear warheads and are able to hit targets anywhere in the world. Though their deployment locations have, understandably, not been revealed.
These hypersonic weapons are installed atop an intercontinental ballistic missile where a hypersonic glide vehicle and the nuclear warhead form its payload. On their launch, they are flown by the missile to altitudes ranging from 25 to 60 miles (40 to 100 km). The glide vehicle then detaches and homes onto the target. The glide vehicles are maneuverable and follow a trajectory lower than that of ballistic missiles.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was jubilant while announcing the weapon. He remarked about the edge Russia had achieved as no other country presently possesses the hypersonic capability. Western experts, however, have taken the achievement with a pinch of salt seeing the record of Russia’s weapon systems.
The US accessed Russian hypersonic missiles under the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). New START is a bilateral agreement between the two countries, aimed at discouraging a nuclear arms race. It was signed in 2010 and allows mutual weapon inspections so that the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers can be reduced.
On 26 November 2019, US inspectors visited Russia and were given a tour of an Avangard facility under the inspection provisions of the New START. The exercise was part of measures to increase transparency in the nuclear programs of the two countries.
The visit of US experts was announced by no less than the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. His ministry stated that the inspection was carried out to keep the treaty “viable and effective”.
The inspection was acknowledged also by the Executive Director of the United States’ Arms Control Association (ACA) Daryl Kimball. According to him, Russia demonstrated the weapon that was to be deployed on a ballistic missile. After Russia’s announcement of Avangard’s deployment, a US State Department official confirmed the November inspection but did not add any further comment.
Expiring on 5 February 2021, this last remaining arms control treaty between the two has slim chances of renewal in light of the US’s pullout from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in August 2019. Seeing the tendencies of US President Donald Trump, Russia has already expressed its willingness to extend the New START without any preconditions. If the US refuses the extension, Mr. Putin will clearly emerge exonerated.
The US started working on developing hypersonic weapons in 2000. The pace, however, remained slow since ground-based insurgency remained the major threat during the last two decades.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) had been extensively working on Program Falcon to develop these weapons. But after failed trials during 2010 and 2011, Congress pulled the plug on funding. As per recent reports though, it has resumed work on developing their engines.
Later in 2018 when Russia was testing the Avangard system, the US Air Force announced that it was working with Lockheed Martin to develop its own hypersonic weapons. At the same time, Boeing is invested with a British company to develop their propulsion systems.
During the last two decades, Russia and China were not engaged in counter-insurgency conflicts at the level of the US and remained focused on developing next-generation weapons. With their research now bearing results, the US has accelerated to cover the lag.
Defence Secretary Mark Esper has made their development a priority as Congress received repeated warnings that Russian and Chinese missiles are increasingly becoming sophisticated and difficult to track and defeat. Esper believes the US will also be successful in showcasing a hypersonic weapon in its strategic arsenal in a couple of years.
Till the time the US fields hypersonic weapons of its own, it is trying to employ countermeasures against those of its adversaries.
Neutralizing hypersonic weapons is tricky since they travel more than five times the speed of sound, covering more than a mile in each second of their flight. This high speed makes them extremely difficult to detect, track and defeat.
So the suggestion put up by US officials is to deploy sensors and interceptors in space that can carry out all of these actions. This, however, will give rise to counter-countermeasures and thus the dawn of space warfare.
US President Donald Trump has been pursuing the establishment of a dedicated military branch for space since 2018. The House and Senate have reached an agreement to fund a Space Force and the US Space Command has been upgraded as a unified combatant command.
In light of the Russian deployment, US efforts to achieve the publicly perceived balance of power will accelerate and a homegrown hypersonic weapon will be announced before 2022. President Trump and his security team have this on their priority list.
The hypersonic weapon developed by the US will have better capability since there doesn’t seem to be an urgency of achieving parity without due research. One area to watch is the technology that the US’s re-entry vehicle will adopt. The gliding mechanism of the Russian vehicle is relatively slow and is prone to defensive measures.
Chinese technology is quick to follow global trends and defense is no exception. In 2018, China had successfully tested its first hypersonic aircraft. With the country’s scientific progress, we should expect China’s announcement of hypersonic weapons coming out at any time.
And finally, as mentioned earlier, the dawn of space warfare. Unless the UN Outer Space Treaty is updated to restrict deployment of any weapon rather than just nuclear weapons of WMDs in space, the global security situation is going to get more complex and more resource-intensive.
The breakthrough in US-Iran relations came at the most unexpected time. President Donald Trump is undergoing an impeachment process and needs massive support from his voters over the validity of his radical approach to governance and foreign policy. A thaw in the US-Iran ties comes as a blessing.
After trading barbs at the UN Security Council meeting on 19 December, US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft reached up to her Iranian counterpart Majid Takht-Ravanchi to condole the death of a two-year-old girl.
Mr. Ravanchi had spoken at length of how US sanctions had made medical care difficult for the Iranian people. The little girl died from a rare skin related disease, he said, because the country could not import special bandages for her.
Despite coming hard upon each other during their speeches, a compassionate exchange of words was a welcome sign among the two bickering foes who have been at odds since the 1979 revolution in Iran.
The exchange might seem insignificant but when seen with other corroborating events, there really has risen a possibility that we might be looking for a softening of stances on both sides.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani visited US’s close ally Japan on 20 December and discussed the 2015 nuclear deal with Japanese leadership. His visit comes at a time when European nations, along with Japan, are scrambling to revive the deal which the US unilaterally canceled in 2018.
With the high profile visit, speculations gained significant traction that Iran was seeking a line to the US. Japan has maintained cautious relations with Iran and was one of the largest buyers of its crude oil till US sanctions stopped it from doing so. This year, on the formation of a US-led maritime security coalition to protect the Strait of Hormuz from the threat from Iran, Japan decided not to be a part of it.
Japan enjoys the confidence of both the US and Iran and is well-positioned for acting as a trusted intermediary in solving one of the most longstanding security issues of the Middle East.
Right after the Iranian delegation departed, Japanese President Shinzo Abe briefed President Trump in a lengthy phone call, giving confirmation to the presence of an indirect channel between the US and Iran.
Iranian president’s visit to Japan is a sign that he may finally be willing to come to the table. Backing for this notion comes from the fact that Iran’s request for the meeting came at a relatively short notice. Meanwhile, Iran also wants to show that it is not cocooning away from the world and is instead open to discuss thorny issues.
Earlier this month, the US and Iran exchanged prisoners in another thawing development. An American graduate student Xiyue Wang, held by Iran for three and a half years, was released in exchange for Masoud Soleimani, an Iranian scientist working on stem cell research and charged with exporting proteins not allowed for Iran.
The American student was charged by the Iranian government for espionage but his relatively early release and his frequent calls with his family in the US show that he was only being kept as a bargaining chip.
The prisoner exchange corroborates with other events that indicate the breakthrough in US-Iran relations. Just as the Iranian leader’s visit to Japan was held at a short notice, this exchange was the result of merely weeks of negotiations between American and Iranian officials. Such a process otherwise takes months and even years to bear positive results.
US officials took the exchange positively with public appreciations. Brian Hook, US special representative for Iran, was especially upbeat on future diplomatic prospects. He expressed hope that the event may lead to broader discussions on consular affairs between the two nations.
Ever since the prisoner exchange, Brian Hook has been sending positive signals to the Iranians. A week after the exchange, he declared that the US was open to dialogue. In the same breath, however, he stated that Iran remained a threat to international peace and security.
In the latest show of toughening up, the US imposed sanctions on Iranian judges who, according to it, carried out ‘miscarriage of justice in show trials’ against participants of the recent protests in the country.
Although these sanctions primarily involved visa restrictions, other tougher ones have been disastrous for Iran’s economy. The oil-rich nation today exports only to a handful of countries that don’t cooperate with US policies.
The US has blamed Iran for carrying out a proxy war against Saudi Arabia and, most recently, of carrying out direct attacks on Saudi oil refinery Aramco. Though the recent diplomatic overtures are a convincing signal of a breakthrough in US-Iran relations.
The United States and China announced the much-awaited phase one of their trade deal on 13 December, sending a sigh of relief in markets across the world. Details of the deal continue to trickle in since the final draft is still not out. Here is what we know of it so far.
Suspension: The US will not implement the additional 15% tariff on $160 billion worth of Chinese goods that was to come into effect from 15 December 2019.
Reduction: US tariffs on $120 billion worth of Chinese goods will be reduced from 15% to 7.5%. These include items like bluetooth headphones, smart speakers and televisions.
Continuation: 25% tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports will remain unchanged.
Since the tariffs were initiated by the US while demanding a change in China’s trade practices, Chinese commitments are more of policy nature than those related to tariffs.
Issues covered: According to Chinese officials, this phase will cover issues related to:
Office of the US trade Trade Representative (USTR) added these issues to the list:
Suspension: Chinese officials stated that they would not be imposing tariffs on US products that were scheduled for 15 December. As the tit-for-tat imposition had been ensuing since the start of the trade war, these tariffs could have been as high as 15% on $160 billion of goods that the US was planning to introduce.
The United States and China will sign the trade deal in early January according to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Until then, speculations will be rife as to what exactly has China agreed in return of the suspended US tariffs.
We can expect changes in the commitments made by the negotiators as the agreement is shuttling back and forth between Washington DC and Beijing for approvals, legal reviews, and translations.
Lighthizer also refuted the possibility of presidents of the two countries meeting for the signing. It will be, instead, ministerial-level reps who will be meeting to sign the final draft of the deal.
US Trade Representative stated that his government will not wait for the 2020 presidential election for taking up phase two of the deal. Whereas, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin believes that it will come in stages but its timeline is yet to be determined.
The US is not planning to impose new tariffs on Chinese imports. Although the Trade Representative links that with the intent of his Chinese counterparts.
No promises have been made by the US on future rollbacks of the remaining tariffs. The US is skeptical of Chinese commitments and is thus not committing to any future concessions.
With a looming threat of President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial and the presidential election due next year, political difficulties for him point out he will not be upsetting his voters from ‘farmer states’ where the majority of his vote bank lies. The protracted trade war had severely shaken their confidence in Trump’s ability to achieve the tariffs’ objectives. That means the deal will certainly go through in some form or the other.
When phase one of the deal was signed, global markets responded but only with a slight positivity. The response reflected investor sentiment that the deal was merely a temporary relief in a battle that will last much longer.
The trade war has transformed from a single individual’s wish – i.e. Donald Trump’s – to a bipartisan issue in the US. China hawks in the administration have thrown weight behind Trump’s decision to challenge the growing clout of China in international trade.
Now that China has moved on from producing low-end products like apparel and home appliances to raising 5G networks, calls are growing among US lawmakers that their country’s technological and economic superiority has to be defended. For this very reason, the imposition of tariffs on China is finding support and is not likely to go away soon.
CLSA, a Hong Kong-based investment group, predicts that the trade war will continue for at least three more years but with the possibility of more phased deals.
Assawer Toheed.
‘Diplomacy’ is one of the most influential works of Henry Kissinger, the famed policy advisor and historian who served as American Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977.
In terms of genres, the book falls under history as it critically analyzes centuries worth of course of actions in terms of politics in an attempt to develop an understanding of the 21st century’s international system’s structural framework. The major focus of the book, in short, revolves around the decision makers and in turn those who practice the art of diplomacy i.e. diplomats and statesman.
To begin with, Kissinger sees the United States of America as holding the reigns of the world, essentially, pertaining to the power it has acquisitioned; however, while they have emerged successful and on top of the world (mostly, due to their isolationist policy), their policy inclinations (free trade, rule of law, and democracy) being rather ideal and their aspirations to spread and implement the aforementioned policy ideations across the globe could lead to the superpower’s downfall. This is primarily, according to Kissinger, due to the fact the USA will have to face competition from other superpowers.
He then draws from the examples of American presidents (Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt) when analyzing the contrasting American foreign policy directions. The fact that both presidents emerge from the same system and yet purport such dissimilar ideas is rather interesting; the former believed in the upholding of universal rights and a system of law and commerce that is transparent whereas the latter was a staunch believer of the idea that America should base its foreign policy wholly and solely on its national interests.
Kissinger further postulates that the prevalent international setting reflects, to some extent, the situation of 17th century when the prevalent order that was rather rigid yet based on universal, moral values was brushed to the sidelines by a more inclusive system of balance of power.
According to Kissinger, there exists a similar element of transition in the 21st century where superpowers across the globe could collaborate to find some form of middle ground i.e. stability in the form of balance of power i.e. a system of status quo characterized with intricate yet complex alliances.
This intricate system of balance of power and thereby complex alliances and its implications can be understood with the example of the Concert of Europe after which a period emerged where peace prevailed. This was mostly because of the flexibility in the relationship of the five superpowers of the time where they could switch teams, essentially, at will depending upon context and circumstance.
Once these five were reduced to two dominant powers, arms race and thus security dilemma was inevitable between blocs of alliances which then led to war. Additionally, Kissinger posits Wilsonian notions’ incompatibility with realism and further analyzes how communist ideations fit the basic postulates of realism.
For instance, while the western powers were stuck amidst the differences of actors good and bad, the soviets viewed them all as bad and found it relatively easier to sift through relations (or lack thereof) with the capitalist bloc; whereas, the capitalist bloc in itself was divided in terms of ideologies and found it rather difficult to maneuver relations due to the system of alliances and attachments of varying natures thus generated.
The author also looks into the ‘what if’ aspect of it all in terms of the idea that had Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill come to different conclusions, could the cold war have been prevented.
He then takes into account the differences that initially divided the west that led to the soviets gaining the might they did; Kissinger wonders if it would have been the same had Churchill and Roosevelt come together sooner, the soviet hold on eastern Europe could have been contained and thus, cold war avoided, essentially.
Despite being skeptical of American idealist viewpoint, however, Kissinger still hands the crown of initiating the cold war entirely to Stalin. The world finding itself divided largely between two blocs (the Capitalist and the Communist bloc) reflects the situation of Europe in the 20th century which was also, essentially divided into two wings of alliances, the years prior to World War I.
Yet, while the European alliance blocs were characterized each with equally strong states that were interdependent in terms of self-defense, the blocs during cold war each had one dominant power with enough rationality to avert the threat of war.
While the seeds of discontent in the blocs had been present in the rift between the two blocs since the beginning, they were aggravated, in no particular order, by the unfolding of events such as the Vietnam War, the Korean War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis etc. where American involvement was a given in an attempt by the Americans to prevent communism from spreading.
Despite America having faced a few setbacks (the Vietnam War), it was successful in ensuring the collapse of the Soviet Union, and thus to a very large extent, ensuring the fall of communism; the aforementioned led to the transition of the international system’s order from bipolarity to unipolarity.
To say the least, the American containment policy appeared to have worked. As far as deliberations over the post-Cold-War period are concerned, it is understood that with the advent of the unipolar world order, and thus with the reigns of the world essentially in the hands of America(ns), it is only rational that they would invest their might in developing, perpetrating and spreading globally a different international order that upholds American values.
This, Kissinger suggested, would not be in the favor of the US since by the 21st century, America wouldn’t exist in a vacuum or in a space of singularity (as far as its only superpower status is concerned) since the international system by then, Kissinger predicted, would be dominated also by superpowers such as China, Europe, Japan, and India.
He then compares the American notions of idealism, that he thinks will also prevail in the 21st century, with the notions of Wilson; it is ironic, he states, since Wilson’s idealism essentially paved way for Word War I. Kissinger is of the view, towards the end of the book, that if America is to be rigid in terms of its foreign policy directions in the face of a multipolar world order, it will only crumble due to overexertion.
Lastly, the author suggest that American foreign policy formulators need to find middle ground, in essence, between the ideas of Wilson (those of universal values) and the ideas of Roosevelt (those of pursuing national interests) if America wants to maintain a respectable (read: most superior) position in the international community.
He, in other words, suggested that the American decision makers need to employ a more realist outlook in any and all of their future courses of actions.
Henry Kissinger rightfully predicted the multipolar world order that would prevail in the 21st century, characterized with various superpowers that have given their adversary (the US) quite the competition. We see a stark silhouette of the alliance system of the five superpowers post the era of the Concert of Europe in the workings today of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), one of the sixth principal organs of the United Nations.
While the UNSC was established in 1945, i.e. before cold war, its role becomes rather prominent in the post-Cold-War era since it was more or less paralyzed, rather stripped of its functions, during the cold war period due to the divide between the Americans and the Soviets.
The UNSC has five permanent members (China, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, and Russia) with each having the vetoing power; these members, in theory, were charged with upholding notions of international security and thereby maintaining peace.
In practice, however, the cold war era was littered with instability, insecurity and instances of trying to one up the adversary thereby essentially failing to uphold the postulated principles. Post-Cold war era, however, witnessed the UNSC sending about peace missions globally and investing largely in peacekeeping budgets.
If we do look into that critically however, the UNSC has to some extent failed yet again if we are to take into account its lack of interest in the indirect ways America has carried out its will over the years, under the façade of upholding its values that directly negate and/or challenge everything the UN stands for.
This gives rise to a number of questions:
1. Were American acts in, for instance, the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq a real depiction of American universal values of rule of law?
2. Whether America, keeping in view the aforementioned, deserves to hold the titles of a Beacon and/or a Crusader?
3. Whether the UNSC/UN is incapable of ensuring what its charter suggests (i.e. peace, value of human life, etc.)? Since the role assigned to the UN in its charter directly states that it is one of upholding collective security and this thus authorizes the UNSC to look into any happening that threatens international peace and security and yet it has hardly responded to the American atrocities across the globe; the examples are endless with hardly any logical reasons.
4. Or has America exploited the vetoing power to the ultimate degree possible?
Answers of the aforementioned, to say the least, reflect of the outlook Henry Kissinger suggested that the American decision makers need to develop in any and all of their future courses of actions; i.e. a realist perspective.
Javed Ali.
When Iran shot down a US drone, there was a threat of war. When Iran seized a British oil tanker in a tit for tat move, there was a threat of war. When Saudi Arabia’s oil refinery was attacked allegedly by cruise missiles, there was a threat of war.
But no new Middle East war is coming. The United States, the Middle East and the world, all cannot afford one. The last time the experiment was undertaken, large swaths of territories fell in the hands of terrorists instead of being liberated. Today, there is no guarantee that the results will be any different.
US intervention, despite the beef up of its troops in the area, is all the more unlikely. President Donald Trump kicked off his tenure in an apparent drive to undo all initiatives of the Obama administration. Among other disastrous moves, the Iran nuclear deal was slashed, leaving little sway for the US on keeping a tab on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Another aim of the Trump administration is to avoid getting into a new war. Trump is pulling out of Afghanistan – even if he publicly states that the talks with the Taliban are over. There is lesser US engagement in Syria and Iraq. And North Korea too seems to be getting cozy. Voters before the next elections have to see Trump as the perfect “deal maker” who has the assured ability to wane conflicts among parties of any level.
Then there is too much for Trump to handle at the domestic front. The imminent threat of impeachment is his biggest concern at the moment. Congress and the media are baying for blood and there is no escape in sight.
If any allies would support him in any new war in the Middle East, this would be the least likely time. His days at the White House may be numbered and getting on a sinking ship is the last option any US partner would like to avail.
The backlash from his supporters who are suffering from the aftereffects of the protracted trade war with China is also weakening his mandate. New wars will further strain the US economy that is trying to find new markets after those of China became expensive, thanks to Trump’s initiatives.
Saudi Arabia is shown appreciable restraint after the attacks on its oil refinery. Although it ousted a major part of its oil production capacity and was a direct attack in its heartland, it decided not to respond. The princes were right in saying that their aggressive response would upset the oil market whose effects would be felt in all global industries, with the potential of severely hampering the world’s growth.
An encouraging sign during these stressing times in the Middle East is the meeting between Saudi and Iranian ministers at a Russian energy conference. While the Iranian oil minister called the Saudi energy minister a friend of 22 years, they were both later seen holding hands with OPEC’s Secretary General.
With all these encouraging sights in the Middle East and troublesome developments for Trump, it can be safely assumed that no new war is coming to the Middles East. Oil supply will remain secure and – if the optimism does not carry us too far – the fire in Yemen too might douse soon.
