We Must Shift the Focus of the Middle East’s Problems away from the U.S.-Iran Standoff
Seeking stability in the Middle East must start with putting the security and needs of people across the region first.
Seeking stability in the Middle East must start with putting the security and needs of people across the region first.
A New York Times report raises serious questions about the official U.S. account of the attack on the K-1 base in eastern Iraq on December 27.
To create peace and stability in other nations, we must elevate their people to prosperity, instead of crushing them.
If George W. Bush and Barack Obama sowed the seeds of the American chaos machine, Donald Trump represents the first true madman at the wheel of state, thanks to his volatile temperament, profound ignorance, and crippling insecurity.
And as long as U.S. forces stay in Iraq, Baghdad and Tehran have a reason to stay close.
Leaving militarily does not mean leaving all together. The United States should continue to pursue its Middle East interests diplomatically and economically.
The biggest impediment to any resurgence of ISIS in Iraq would be good governance and stability in Iraqi politics. U.S. troops are not contributing to those goals.
One well-established principle of sanctions policy is that the country or group imposing the sanctions must be prepared to take yes for an answer.
Few noticed Trump’s recent offer to work with Iran to combat ISIS and on other “shared priorities.”
The Trump administration has no intention of respecting the wishes of the Iraqi government.
Trump doesn’t seem to realize that he himself built the escalation ladder by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.
To the sure delight of the hardliners inside and outside the U.S. administration who have always favored regime change, Trump has no plan B that can create a credible path back to diplomacy and negotiations.
President Kennedy once said that, “Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.”
Hawks hated the Iran nuclear deal because they feared not that it would fail to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but that it would succeed — and thereby deprive the United States of a rationale to dominate the region and discipline its foe.
Lebanese Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah recently warned that retaliation for the Soleimani assassination would be aimed at U.S. military assets, suggesting that suicide bombers will be deployed.
If U.S. troops in Iraq are attacked by Iran, the Trump administration will feel compelled to respond, and the U.S. will soon be fighting yet another war in the Middle East.
The political fallout from Trump’s kill order will extend far wider than Iraq.
Masih Alinejad isn’t just an Iranian journalist and activist. She’s on the U.S. government payroll and works for the increasingly “rabidly pro-Trump” Voice of America.
If Trump and Pompeo really want to de-escalate, that means not only backing off from more provocative and deadly kinetic acts; it also means backing off from the economic warfare that started the destructive cycle.
Would Trump ever assassinate a Chinese military leader?
Congress had the chance to repeal the law authorizing the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Team Trump is now using it as legal justification for killing Soleimani.