1/10/2020 Escalation of Tensions between USA and Iran after the Airstrike conducted by USA killing General Qasem Soleimani and its possible effects on IndiaRead NowAmidst the long-standing conflict between United States and Iran, the recent airstrike conducted by United States which resulted in killing of General Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, has escalated the tensions between the two nations dramatically.
Pentagon confirmed that the attack, which took down General Soleimani, who spearheaded Iranian military operations in the Middle East and was considered to be the second most powerful person in Iran after the Supreme leader, came at the direction of President Trump. The Trump administration considered General Soleimani and his troops a "foreign terrorist organization" and held Soleimani's troops responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. The Pentagon said, targeting Soleimani was aimed at deterring “future Iranian attack plans”, while Trump said the Iranian general was targeted because he was planning “imminent and sinister” attacks on U.S. diplomats and military personnel. Trump and his top aides are defending the legality of action as being within the authority of the president. However, the top democrats are questioning whether the Trump administration required congressional approval for the same. Trump’s supporters are basing their support on Article 2 of the US Constitution, which allows the president to use military force in support of the national interest, when the force does not constitute war. It is debatable whether the actions constitute a declaration of war and whether congressional approval is required for acts of self-defence. The US Govt. is justifying the strike as an act of self-defence and deterrence. However, its legality under international law is also questionable. UN special rapporteur Agnès Callamard said that the drone strike resulting in the General’s killing is in violation of international human rights law. She criticized the Pentagon’s statement about the airstrike, and in reply to the justification given by the US Govt. that the action was in response to imminent threats to American lives she said, “under customary international law, states can take military action if the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate.” She also mentioned that the killing appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self-defence. Iran has vowed a severe revenge in retaliation to the airstrike and this can be seen as a potential turning point in the geopolitics of the Middle East. The question which stands unanswered is that whether the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani can be seen as a declaration of war. Soleimani may have been controversial, even a "shadow commander", but he served at the pleasure of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, to protect and expand the regime's interests in the Middle East. Soleimani’s killing is an attack on the Iran’s state sovereignty. The attack also violates the sovereignty of Iraq as it was conducted on the territory of Iraq without the permission of Iraqi Government. This raises a serious doubt on the legality of the strike as violating international law by being an act of aggression and breaching the Iraqi sovereignty. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against other states barring an exception if the act is conducted in self-defence. Self-defence means fending off an armed attack. The question is whether the attack can be said to be in “anticipatory” self-defence, and it must meet the heightened Caroline Test, which requires that the necessity of self-defence “is instant, overwhelming, and leaves no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Amidst the rising fear of a war between the two nations, the UN Secretary General has advocated for de-escalation and has made clear that the world cannot afford another Gulf War. The Trump administration had, earlier in its policy decisions, aimed to impose tough sanctions on Iran aimed at crippling its economy and containing its regional ambitions rather than acting in a way which could initiate war with the Islamic Republic. If this is so, then can it be considered that the action was to deflect attention from the impeachment during the election year? Or was it a response meant to safeguard American lives from future attacks, not start war with Iran. Either way, the assassination is a clear departure from the policy of sanctions, showing Trump administration’s readiness to use US military might as much as its economic power. What impact can the escalating situation have on India? At this point, India cannot handle tension in the Persian Gulf given the precarious position of its economy. There are two primary dangers which India can face if the situation escalates further. Firstly, heightened tensions could affect economies of the region in conflict and could endanger jobs of many Indians which in turn would place pressure on the Indians to return and could also endanger the remittances which India receives from West Asia. Secondly, the situation is causing a rise in the prices of oil. International prices have gone up by 4% since the strike. An increase in international oil prices could adversely affect the country and result in inflation thus, hampering India’s economy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |