The fallout from the decision by the Trump Administration to approve the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani continues to grow. The latest of these seismic effects have been indications from the UK, traditionally, the USA’s closest ally, that it could tear up their longstanding defence agreement.
In an openly shocking interview with The Sunday Times, UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace questioned America’s world leadership role and went as far as to indicate that the UK would be seeking alternative international allies who more closely shared their interests. The implications here are quite stunning when one considers the fact that Wallace did not skirt the issue of the UK’s dependency on American air cover, intelligence and surveillance.
Wallace’s comments come in the wake of Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government’s actions of distancing itself from the killing of Soleimani and quick condemnation of Trump’s threat to bomb Iranian cultural sites which could be a breach of international law and even a possible war crime.
Is Soleimani’s death the tipping point for US allies? Has Trump’s isolationist foreign policy gone too far this time? In the words of the UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, this escalation risked a confrontation that “only terrorists would be the winners.” Not to be overlooked in all these announcements is the fact that Trump has already made known to the Brits his willingness to terminate their intelligence sharing agreement if the UK government followed through on its plan to allow Huawei, the Chinese technology giant, to be involved in the development of their 5G network.
As President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continued to vacillate between the possible reason(s) as to why the assassination order was given, NBC News reported on Monday that five current and former members of the Trump administration have confirmed that the order to remove Soleimani had been issued seven months ago on the condition that Trump would have final sign off on any specific operation. The directive had been given following the shooting down of an American drone by Iran. At the time, Trump had stated that he would only agree to Soleimani’s removal if an American life was lost.
The wide range of contradictory explanations provided have prompted the question, in many quarters, as to the real reason why the order was given. Initially, the US Department of Defense stated that the killing of the general was to protect US personnel abroad and the general had been planning attacks on American diplomats and service members in Iraq and the Middle East. Next, Trump and Pompeo cited “imminent threats” in their respective tweets. As the days passed various other reasons were tossed forward including, Soleimani was ‘a terrorist’, and “his time was due.”
Americans, of course, will remember in 2003 that “imminent threat” was the term, used by the then President George W Bush, in his denunciation of Saddam Hussein and the threat he posed to the world.
Was Trump’s decision a desperate sleight of hand act to create a distraction from or suspend the pending impeachment process? Whatever the real reason is, Americans, including the blinkered Republicans, are slowly coming around to accepting the fact that Trump’s loose cannon approach to diplomacy and governance could have escalated into another disastrous war for America, for which it has neither the time nor money to squander on.
How far will the seismic effects of Trump’s decision reach? Come November the American electorate will make the final decision.
