Here are 5 future implications of the showdown in the conflict between US and Iran.
1. The likelihood of a third world war.
Since the end of the first (1914 – 1918) and second world wars (1939 – 1945), the world has not witnessed any major war. There were fears of a possible third world war after the recent US-Iran face-off.
However, both countries have allayed fears that the conflict will lead to a war.
America’s Donald Trump stated that the recent bombing of Soleimani was not an act of war. He said, “we took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war”.
On its part, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif tweeted, “we do not seek escalation or war, but we will defend ourselves against any aggression”.
Even though the world will not intentionally tilt towards a third world war, one cannot rule out the possibility of it happening. All it takes is a wrong move on a powerful country by another and all hell could break loose.
2. More attacks on US citizens and military facilities in the Middle East.
Qassem Soleimani may be dead, but the Quds Force which he headed is still much around.
Already, the Iranian government has announced that Brigadier-General Esmail Ghaani will take over leadership from the former military leader.
What this portrays is that air strikes on US bases in the Middle East will not cease. Soleimani before his death was reported to have been planning more attacks by hitting four US embassies in the region.
Even after his death, a US facility was hit in neighbouring Iraq in a retaliatory attack against his death. The Quds Force and its present leader will not relent in continuing the attacks from where Soleimani stopped.
3. It will influence voters choice in Donald Trump’s reelection bid.
The US presidential election is schedule to hold in November 2020 as the incumbent, Mr Donald Trump seeks reelection as president of the USA.
Whether the strike on Qassem Soleimani will help Trump win more votes or not depends on a number of factors.
President Trump’s campaign team are already running hundreds of facebook ads, depicting the president as a decisive commanding leader in an attempt to sway more voters to his side.
Trump received praises from allies and Republican senators after the strike on the Iranian.
On the contrary, Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate has called the attack a ‘dangerous escalation’.
This thought is also shared by many Democrats who are of the opinion that Trump’s action on the Iranian military leader which Presidents Bush and Obama deemed too risky will be used against him in the presidential election.
A fraction of the voters are sitting on the fence and are weary about the attack. As much as they are not against Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani, a man labelled a terrorist, they are also concerned about more reaction from Iran which could be dangerous.
As the presidential election approaches and events continue to unfold, it will be interesting to see where the pendulum swings to.
4. Possibility of violation of international laws.
USA is a sovereign state, so is Iran. In international law, it is considered an illegal act of war to kill a government official of another country without a clear threat of attack.
There is little or no evidence at all to prove America’s action was right even with its official claiming that he (Soleimani) was behind many attacks on US military facilities and her citizens in the Middle East. After all, before the strike, Iran was still committed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA), a deal the US had withdrawn from.
5. Iran may never give up in its pursuit to have a nuclear weapon.
On January 5 2020, the Iranian government announced it will no longer respect the restrictions laid out in the JCPOA it signed in 2015, aimed at controlling its nuclear usage in exchange of lifting the sanctions placed on it.
The statement read “Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no limitations and based on its technical needs”.
The reasons are not farfetched. Trump’s administration earlier in May 2018, withdrew from the treaty it had signed together with Iran and some other countries.
The assassination of the the former Quds leader was another reason the country backed out.
Although Iran did not completely withdraw from the pact, it stated that it will no longer recognize restrictions on the levels of uranium it uses.
This prompted a response from the Head of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen who in his statement said “we are deeply concerned by Iran’s announcement that it will not respect the limit set by the JCPOA any longer.
” He continued that it is important for Iran to return to the deal and “convince Iran that it’s also in its own interest”.
Returning to the deal is highly unlikely. Rather, the quest to build without limitation is bigger now after America’s show of force.
Share your opinions in the comments section below.