Can the US President’s signal on de-escalation on Iran be trusted or not? Will it all amount to an unwanted war and disharmony between not only two countries but the entire world?
The Past
In the year 2018, there were some scandals of the US President that drove people insane, which makes it hard for them to believe his de-escalation statement fully. He called global warming a “hoax” invented by the Chinese and left the Paris climate agreement. This happened even though the world is close to catastrophe due to global warming. Adding to this he ordered the US withdrawal from the agreement despite the fact the US alone accounted for a third of greenhouse gas emissions before China replaced it in the last few years.
It is for these reasons that more than two-thirds of Germans believe that Trump’s policies are making the world a more dangerous place. During a survey in Germany, the citizens have stated Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal and Paris Climate Accord – along with his hostility towards Germany – as the leading cause for ranking him their biggest single worry.
It is pretty clear that his intentions are constantly worrying numerous people around the globe!
The Present
A few days after Iranian force fired missiles at military bases housing US troops in Iraq; in retaliation for killing Iranian commander, General Qassem Soleimani in Tehran– Washington DC on January 8, took a step back. US President Donald Trump stated he would back away from any military escalation against Tehran. He also claimed the missile strikes had not harmed any US personnel stationed in Iraq, and that the damage was minimal.
Despite signs of de-escalation, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had announced the House would vote on January 9, to force President Donald Trump to quickly wind down military action against Iran unless he is given explicit authorisation from Congress.
The further remarks made by the President seem to be used as a way to cool down the boiling water between the two countries. He is relieved that the attacks caused minimal damage and Iran did not choose to attack the American civilians.
Looking further into talks of de-escalation, let’s keep in mind other instances where President Trump had stated that he is wary of nation-building and regime changes that once were of deep interest to his party. North Korea was jeopardized with ‘Fire and Fury’, but a few months later, negotiations were being held with its dictator!
In the context of Iran, Trump not only threatened to end the life of the commanding General (and then ended up carrying out his plan) but also of his decision to bomb 52 Iranian sites, as well as the cultural ones. Why 52 some may ask, that was in reference to the 52 American diplomats and citizens who were held hostage for 444 days in the US Embassy, which was taken over by a student group of Iranian Revolutionaries in the year 1979.
On January 8, he vowed that Iran would not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon ‘as long as I am President.’ Yet in that same speech, he extended a hand of cooperation to Iran, stating that the destruction of ISIS is good for the country. This doesn’t sound like a man bent on regime change by military force. They are the words of a President who seeks to move Iran’s focus from targeting Americans and building nuclear weapons.
Although The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is encouraged by the statement, efforts should still be made to avoid a possible war in the Gulf which the world cannot afford says a UN spokesperson.
Though the dangers of an immediate shoot-out with Iran has passed, the House of Representatives on January 9, voted to approve a resolution aimed at restraining the President Trump’s ability to use military action against Iran without congressional approval, amid simmering tensions between the US and the country.
With a 224 majority of votes against 194, the resolution has been passed and now will go to the Senate.
Freshman Democratic Representative Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst and senior Defense Department official, is the sponsor of the resolution, which calls on the President “to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran” unless Congress advocates war or enacts “specific statutory authorization” for the control of armed forces.
One additional limitation outlined in the resolution is if the use of armed forces “is necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent armed attack upon the United States.”
It seems that the world will have to wait for the judgement of the Senate on the resolution to feel at peace.
