- On Thursday evening, the Pentagon confirmed that it had killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, angering the Islamic republic.
- A new escalation that only follows the trend of recent months and years, where the two countries are mounting tensions and threats.
- A very complex situation that "20 Minutes" tried to decipher and summarize.
The year has barely started that we already evoke on social networks the hypothesis of a "Third World War". The Pentagon confirmed Thursday evening that it had killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, chief of foreign operations for the Revolutionary Guards, in a bombing attack in Baghdad. An act which provoked the ire of the Islamic republic, which promises revenge. 20 Minutes answers six questions posed by this new escalation in the strained relations between Iran and the United States.
How did we get here ?
Tensions between the two countries are not new: after the hostage-taking at the American Embassy in Iran in 1976, the country became "the Great Satan" for the United States, and vice versa. Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons afterwards did not help to ease relations between the two countries.
But new tensions appeared when the United States unilaterally decided in May 2018 to exit from the nuclear deal, which they co-signed in 2015 under the impetus of Barack Obama. "The policy of the United States was then to apply maximum pressure," says Jean-Eric Branaa, lecturer at the Sorbonne on American politics. In particular with a continuous embargo, in order to bring Iran back to the negotiating table and to review the agreement.
The plan is far from going as planned: instead of coming back to negotiate, the Iranians are camping out on their positions. Then begins a dangerous climbing game where each side responds to the provocation of the other. And where disproportionate responses are not uncommon, due in particular to the lack of dialogue between two countries that no longer speak to each other. What Jonathan Piron, a historian and political scientist from the Middle East and more specifically from Iran, calls "the security dilemma". Having no news from the enemy, each country will anticipate the worst and intensify its action, lest the adversary do the same. Which creates these bogged down situations.
Everything has been racing for the past few weeks, after the death of an American soldier in Iraq and demonstrations by the population around the American embassy in the country. The United States denounces a terrorist act and accuses Iran of being behind the protests.
Is the death of General Qassem Soleimani a new turning point?
For Hasni Abidi, director of the Center for Studies and Research on the Arab and Mediterranean World (CERMAM), no doubt: "I don't like the use of the word" landing "over and over, but there yes , clearly, a new level has been crossed. It is a symbol of Iran that was attacked. General Qassem Soleimani thus symbolized "Iranian foreign policy", in addition to being a military and political man. According to Jonathan Piron, many Iranians even saw him as a potential candidate for the future presidential election.
Be that as it may, "Iran cannot remain unanswered," says Hasni Abidi, but the country does not have much room for maneuver either, wedged between, on the one hand, an internal population that is strongly raises and manifests against the power in place, and on the other, American military power.
Is there a risk of starting a "Third World War"?
On social networks, it ignites the risks of a conflict on an international scale. The hashtag # WW3 is even trending worldwide. According to experts interviewed by 20 Minutes , the risks of a new global conflict are, however, limited. "Neither of the two states has an interest in going into an open war," reassures Jonathan Piron. He took the opportunity to recall that the Islamic Republic is far from being a state with irrational decisions: “Iran has only two goals, to ensure its stability and defend its interests. To engage in open conflict with the United States would be against each of these doctrines. And the country is well aware that it absolutely cannot compete militarily with the first world power.
For Jean-Eric Branaa, nothing attests either to a conflict that will internationalize. If he recognizes that many military powers have strong interests in the region - Israel, Turkey, China among others -, all these beautiful people should kindly leave their armies alongside.
With regard to the two main players, the American expert is less assertive: “It all depends on the Iranian response. If they attack Americans directly, the risk is great for conflict. According to him, Donald Trump would imagine a quick war, like the first Gulf conflict. But for that, it needs Iran to fire first, to have a motive, and possible support from the international community.
What is likely to happen?
If the conflict has little chance of igniting the world, the Middle East risks being the first victim of this new escalation. The three experts share the analysis: the situation in the region, already unstable, is likely to get worse. "To compete with the Americans, Iran has two weapons, ballistic missiles and its Shia militias in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. He can press it to destabilize countries that are already very fragile. "Says Jonathan Piron. No coincidence, moreover, if the United States expressly asked its nationals in Iraq to flee the country.
If there is no direct conflict, Hasni Abidi therefore sees “a situation continuing to get bogged down, with piecemeal responses of different intensities, according to the previous opponent. "
Can we envisage a way out of the crisis?
Jonathan Piron's response sounds like a confession: "In the current state of things, I don't see how to get out of the crisis, except to change leaders for one of the countries". For the political scientist, the situation has gone far too far for a step backwards to be possible.
A little more optimism in Jean-Eric Branaa, who thinks that the crisis can be resolved thanks to the intervention of a third power. But for the moment, Europe has shown itself powerless to organize negotiations, when China or Russia are absent subscribers. “The whole problem in the Middle East is that everyone has their interests and wants to protect them instead of thinking for the benefit of all. It is therefore difficult to see an international power emerge to play the role of neutrality, ”says Jonathan Piron.
Is there an "American presidential" effect in this escalation?
2020 is the year of the American presidential election. An electoral event that could have consequences in this case. Donald Trump is looking for an international stature, but he is currently accumulating setbacks. The stagnation in Iran does not do its job either. "Above all, he is convinced that his democratic opponent will be Joe Biden, supports Jean-Eric Branaa. However, the strength of this adversary is his international posture, he who was Commander-in-Chief under Barak Obama. On this issue, Donald Trump can no longer back down and must go to the end of his idea. "
World
Death of Soleimani: "Climbing", "worry" ... International reactions flock after the death of the Iranian general
World
Death of Soleimani: "Climbing", "worry" ... International reactions flock after the death of the Iranian general
- World
- Conflict
- Donald trump
- Iran
- United States