Policy Alert #201 | January 13, 2020

The New Year began with an attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad on New Year’s Eve by protestors opposing US airstrikes against an Iranian-backed militia operating in Iraq and Syria, which was quickly followed by a US drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport targeting Islamic Revolutionary Guard Major General Qasem Soleimani. The assassination of the Iranian general resulted in the Iraqi Parliament passing a resolution to expel the US military from the country as well as Iranian missile attacks on US bases in Iraq. The tension has spilled into the civilian sphere, as well: the US denied a visa for Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to attend a meeting of the United Nations Security Council regarding the conflict, and a Ukrainian Airlines flight from Tehran was mistakenly shot down by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in its anticipation of reprisal from the US. The Iranian government further announced its plans to “discard” the component of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also referred to as the Iran Deal) which places limits on the number of centrifuges it uses in the production of nuclear power, to the ire of the remaining supporters of the deal following the US’s abrupt and unilateral exit in May 2018. Amidst the sudden escalation of the situation between Iran and the US, China and Russia boldly vetoed a resolution condemning the attack on the US embassy in the wake of the US’s airstrike.

 

CHINA
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Geng Shuang condemned the US strike on General Soleimani: “We oppose the use of force in international relations and believe that all sides should earnestly abide by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the basic norms governing international relations. Iraq’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity must be respected, and peace and stability of the Gulf Region in the Middle East must be upheld. We urge the relevant parties, the US side in particular, to remain calm and restrained and avoid further escalating the tensions.” China’s call for calm was later extended to Iran following its strikes against US bases in Iraq: “We call on relevant sides to exercise restraint and believe that they should resolve disputes properly and peacefully through dialogue and negotiation on the basis of mutual respect, and jointly uphold regional peace and stability.” As US President Donald Trump encouraged the remaining members of the JCPOA to pull out from the deal in the wake of the unrest, China argued that US behavior in the Middle East, and especially its unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, “are the root cause of current tensions.”

• The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China (CPC), criticized the US for its decision to launch an airstrike in Iraq to target General Soleimani without prior warning: “Every country shoulders the responsibility to safeguard international peace and security. Any abuse of power or risky military act is not acceptable for the international society.”
• The China Daily, a state-supported newspaper, voiced its support for the veto of the UN Security Council statement condemning the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad in the wake of the US airstrike: “If the UN Security Council issues a statement, it is duty bound to ensure it explains the full circumstances surrounding its release. Which in this instance should also include Iraq calling on it on Monday to condemn the US for staging the assassination on its soil. […] Although both Iran and Iraq have exercised considerable restraint in their responses so far, the alerts the US administration and military have put themselves on, and the universal worries expressed by the international community, mean that further consequences are anticipated.”
• The nationalist Global Times warned that the stigma of backing down may compel the two sides to escalate the conflict despite a lack of actual interest to do so: “Historical experience has shown that waging wars were often not the belligerents’ actual will. Many wars were pushed step by step by particular ways of interaction between different governments as well as between governments and their peoples. […] Politically, it is the simplest option for the US and Iran to get trapped in retaliation. Concessions are much harder – this is exactly the reason why it can reflect courage and wisdom.”
• As tensions appeared to calm late last week, the independent, Hong Kong based South China Morning Post remained vigilant: “The risk of all-out war have receded. […] But the conditions that took the nations to the brink remain as dangerous. […] The Middle East is no less a tinderbox; diplomacy and dialogue are the only way to resolve the region’s challenges.”

INDIA
In response to the US strike, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) published a press release calling for restraint: “The increase in tension has alarmed the world. Peace, stability and security in this region is of utmost importance to India. It is vital that the situation does not escalate further. India has consistently advocated restraint and continues to do so.” In a series of tweets, Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar reported that he was in direct communication with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and that he and Minister Zarif “agreed to remain in touch.”

• The liberal Indian Express encouraged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to assist in mediating between Iran and the US, but not without assistance: “India’s high stakes in the Gulf […] demand that Modi try his hand at regional peace. Doing it in partnership with other regional countries like Saudi Arabia and like-minded powers like Europe and Japan might yet make some difference to the political outcomes in the Gulf.”
• The liberal Hindustan Times, on the other hand, argued that “mediation” is only possible if the two sides are willing to come to the table: “India cannot play mediator given neither the US nor Iran have shown real interest in such a role, but there is a place for a messenger. New Delhi is in a position to talk to both countries. At the least, it should investigate whether there is mutual interest in India playing such a role. The idea is not peace making but mistake avoidance.”
• The left-leaning The Wire carried an op-ed by journalist and foreign policy expert Sujan Dutta who warned of new challenges for Indian cooperation with the US in any future Iran crisis given the juxtaposition of divergent policy views and recent Indo-US defense pacts.
• The right-leaning Times of India emphasized the importance of stability in the region for India’s own economic well-being given the country’s dependence on oil imports: “While what happens in the Middle East may not be in New Delhi’s control, government must try to insulate the economy from external shocks by offering a big economic vision in the upcoming budget. That’s India’s lifejacket here.”
• In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, contributing editor on foreign affairs and director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore C. Raja Mohan argued that despite the blistering rhetoric between US President Donald Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the two face considerable political hurdles at home that will reduce the risk of actual escalation of conflict: “While there is always the danger of miscalculation by one or more of the actors, it would be unwise to assume they are irrational.”

JAPAN
During a press conference, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi explained the steps his country was taking in response to the Iranian attack on US bases in Iraq: “The Government of Japan has urged all parties to make utmost diplomatic efforts to ease tensions. It is deeply regrettable that this recent attack nevertheless took place. Any further escalation of the situation must be avoided. The Government of Japan will continue to closely monitor the situation in the Middle East with a high level of vigilance. Japan will continue to engage in diplomatic efforts towards the easing of tensions in the Middle East and the stabilization of the situation, while working together with the relevant countries. Various circumstances permitting, I intend to visit the United States next week and engage in consultations on this matter.” Following Iran’s announcement that it would not abide by the JCPOA limits on centrifuges, Minister Motegi called for Iran to reconsider: “Japan supports the JCPOA which contributes to strengthening the international non-proliferation regime and thereby to the stability of the Middle East. We are strongly concerned about Iran’s latest announcement. It is regrettable that Iran made such an announcement despite our persistent diplomatic efforts to strongly urge Iran not to take measures that may undermine the JCPOA. Japan once again strongly urges Iran to comply with the JCPOA, and to immediately return to its commitment under the JCPOA.”

• The progressive Asahi Shimbun argued that the current tension in the region should be a sign to the government to reconsider its deployments of the Maritime Self-Defense Force (SDF) in the Gulf: “Dispatching the SDF to the Middle East is not what Japan, which depends on the region for most of the oil it consumes, should do now. Instead, Tokyo should capitalize on its friendly ties with Tehran to make diplomatic efforts to ensure effective communications among countries involved.”
• The liberal Mainichi echoed concerns over the appropriateness of continuing with the SDF deployment despite the fact that “the preconditions for the deployment have changed.”
• The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, meanwhile, focused on the threat to the international economy that prolonged conflict would raise: “The turmoil in the Middle East will cause a rise in crude oil prices, adversely affecting the global economy. All pertinent nations, including Japan, should perceive the seriousness of the situation and strive to end the current circumstances.”

RUSSIA
Following the US strike targeting Soleimani, the Russian Foreign Ministry reported that in a phone call between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Lavrov “stressed that the purposeful actions of a UN member state on eliminating officials of another UN member state, especially on the territory of a third sovereign state without giving it prior notice, blatantly violate the principles of international law and should be condemned.” In a later call between Foreign Minister Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, the two leaders “stressed that the use of force in violation of the UN Charter is unacceptable.” In the wake of Iran’s announcement to stop abiding by limits on centrifuges as outlined in the JCPOA, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its commitment to the deal. In response to a question regarding Russia’s decision to veto the proposed UN Security Council statement condemning the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova replied: “The Russian Federation invariably and consistently upholds the principle of inviolability and security of diplomatic missions. We were ready to work on the US draft this time as well. But a few hours later, the US military delivered a strike at Baghdad’s civilian airport, which killed several people, including Major General Qassem Soleimani of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commander of its Quds Force. […] Against this background, the US attempts, in subsequent days, to promote their UN Security Council draft statement turned into a search for justifications for their unlawful and violent action. In this specific case, the UN Security Council’s approval of the proposed statement would have amounted to a display of disregard for the use of force in violation of the UN Charter and for the principle of respect on the part of all countries for sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.”

• In an op-ed for the independent, Dutch-based Moscow Times, Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg Opinion’s Europe columnist and founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and op-ed website Slon.ru, provided analysis of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calculus in prioritizing a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan regarding the recent instability in the region over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: “Putin, for his part, never wanted to own the Syrian crisis, but rather to prop up forces willing to consider Russia’s economic and military interests ahead of U.S. ones. That meant maintaining the status quo — and from Moscow, the Axis of Resistance, not just the Assad regime, was the status quo.”
• In her op-ed for the Moscow Times, Marianna Belenkaya, Arab affairs expert and journalist at the Kommersant publishing house, focused on potential gains for Russia in the Middle East: “Trump’s lashing out at the government in Iraq, which was until recently loyal to Washington, might persuade other Middle Eastern countries to strengthen their relationship with Russia. The question is whether Moscow is ready: not only to catch the wave, but also to invest major resources and effort in developing a long-term policy for the Middle East.”

 

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.