The Iranian extension of Donald Trump

The new year began with another meaningless decision by US President Donald Trump. The murder of General Qasssem Solejmani, who led Iran's Revolutionary Guard operations, was a reckless, provocative and short-lived act. Soliman no doubt had a huge impact on the Middle East. But he was also the leader of an armed arm of the Iranian state and enjoyed apparent popularity in his country, regardless of Trump's claiming otherwise.

Once again, the United States has overstepped and set a dangerous precedent for its opposers to use as an excuse to perform similar operations. After the attack on Soleiman, Trump went so far as to threaten Iran repeatedly with the destruction of several cultural centers in the country, which would constitute a war crime. Although Trump seems to have reconsidered this, his chronic impulsiveness simply indicates the lack of proper planning. Solemann's murder was a sensational act, probably intended mainly for domestic consumption. In the long term, however, will it be effective?

Of course, the answer will depend on Trump's goals in front of Iran. His administration has argued that the president's drastic intervention would have a stumbling block for the Iranian regime, for which Solejman was an absolutely necessary asset.

This assumption is controversial. Although Iran's revenge in the form of missile attacks against two Iraqi bases hosting American troops has so far been relatively subdued, the regime will stand to use weapons. Nor can it be assumed that the loss of Solejman, despite his importance, would be insurmountable to the regime, which has already named his deputy as the successor to Solejman.

The core of the problem for the US is that it has no clear objectives regarding Iran, and therefore there is no clearly defined strategy. In the Middle East, the U.S. should have learned so far, this is a recipe for disaster. Today's tensions do not mean either the Trump or the leaders of Iran are seeking war. In many cases, however, countries are caught up in unwanted conflicts, especially when overconfidence makes them reckless. With its fluctuations, Trump has managed to force not only Iran to stay in a corner (which may motivate its leaders to take a more aggressive stance), but has taken on such a corner itself.

In the absence of a plan, it is no wonder that his administration is constantly at odds with itself. Just as Iran was feeling the effects of a brutally oppressed domestic protest wave, the US eased the pressure of the Iranian leadership. The great multitudes who went out to mourn for Soleiman do not lie. With Iran's legislative elections just weeks away, the US offered a golden opportunity to the most conservative and anti-American elements in the country.

Now, however, attention has been restored to the Iranian regime because of its own mistakes. After Iran's leaders admitted after three days of official denial that Iranian missiles accidentally crashed a Ukrainian civilian plane, killing all 176 people on board, the regime has once again become the target of popular anger. This situation serves as a reminder of the daily troubles facing Iranian citizens, which reflect the effects of internal and foreign negligence.

Protests against the regime in Iran are echoing in other Middle East countries, where it enjoys a visible impact. Overcoming their religious differences, Lebanese and Iraqis have been raised against Iran's interventions in recent months, most of which were orchestrated by Soleian himself. But Trump ignored Napoleon's famous principle: “Never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake. ” Now, the Iraqi Parliament has called (verily) for the withdrawal of American troops deployed in the country that would be in Iran's interest. The Trump administration has responded chaoticly, wrongly announcing a troop withdrawal and later denied that a possible withdrawal was immediate.

Despite this, the possibility that Trump brings an end to the US military presence in Iraq should not be rejected, even though the attraction is likely to be unworthy. For now, NATO forces fighting the Islamic State have suspended their operations, and some US allies have begun to evacuate their troops from Iraq.

But that doesn't mean the United States is leaving the Middle East. On the contrary, the number of American troops in the region has increased by 15 thousand over the past six months. And while the U.S. energy dependence from the Middle East may have diminished, <x0pass” to Asia, announced by Obama administration, has not yet happened. Of course, a greater conflict with Iran would undermine US efforts to control China, America's main global competition.

The long list of American nonsense should add to the confused incentives Trump has highlighted with his last blow against Iran, which has posed an unpleasant question: Would the U.S. have done the same to North Korea armed with nuclear weapons? Iran fulfilled the 2015 nuclear agreement signed by major global powers officially known as the Joint Action Plan (JCPOA) and continued to fulfil it for about a year after Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the pact. And yet, as Trump held friendly meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong, his administration imposed economic sanctions on Iran -- a treatment that is unlikely to encourage Kim Jong's regime for possible denolarization.

Although Iran has announced that it will now stop respecting JCPOA's restrictions on its nuclear programme, it has not closed the door for the possibility of salvation of the agreement. Furthermore, the American-Iranian tensions seem to have been somewhat reduced in recent days. But this may be a surprise: the collapse of Ukraine's aircraft has added a new element to the equation, which the Trump administration seems very eager to exploit. Moreover, Trump has not abandoned his unattended demands and continues to pressure other JCPOA signatories to abandon the agreement.

In the end, the United States will have to accept an undisputed reality: in situations as critical as this, which was created in an unnecessary way, diplomacy is not an option but an obligation. To avoid disaster, which must be the top priority for all parties involved, this is certainly the way to go. /Buriment: Project Syndicate/In Albanian by: BIRN/