| | | | America's First Test After the Soleimani Strike | | After the strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, America's first test will be repairing its relationship with Iraq, Meghan O'Sullivan writes for Foreign Affairs. Iraq has voiced displeasure with the US in the past, but after Sunday's parliamentary vote calling for the expulsion of foreign troops, O'Sullivan writes that "[t]his time is different," as usual moderating voices (including Iraq's prime minister) are no longer standing by the US. The relationship can be saved if Washington agrees to revamp it, but the cutting of US-Iraq ties is "one of the most dramatic consequences" of Soleimani's killing and is "unfolding at a rapid pace," O'Sullivan writes.
The test has gotten off to a rocky start. The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which backed the Soleimani strike, nonetheless criticized Trump's threat to sanction Iraq in the wake of Sunday's vote, writing in an editorial that such "rhetorical barrage[s]" aren't helpful. | | How to Prevent a War With Iran | | Preventing further escalation after the Soleimani strike—and a spiral into war—will require hard and careful work, Kelly Magsamen writes for Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately, President Trump will need some things on short supply in his administration: Bipartisan congressional support for next steps, the expertise of diplomats and national-security professionals, global good will, and allies.
The strike wasn't just an escalation, writes Randa Slim of the Middle East Institute: It changed the dynamic between the US and Iran and made war harder to avoid. Until now, the US and Iran have engaged in a carefully calibrated tit-for-tat, but "the old rules of the game that have governed their competition have been shattered." While regional players like Oman can help create offramps, Soleimani's absence itself could make the situation less predictable, since "the man who used to be the tempo-setter and mastermind of calibrated Iranian escalation against the U.S. is now gone." | | Is the Middle East Safer Without America? | | In a Foreign Policy essay, Trita Parsi offers a resounding "yes." Since President Jimmy Carter, the US has sought to guarantee security in the Middle East (a doctrine recently defended by Hal Brands, Steven A. Cook, and Kenneth M. Pollack in the same magazine), and today, some see US power as a stabilizing presence that keeps regional rivalries from spiraling out of control. But that's not how it works, Parsi writes.
When the US pulls back, regional actors turn to diplomacy, not war, Parsi argues: Most recently, when President Trump declined to take military action against Iran following strikes on Saudi oil facilities, Saudi Arabia and the UAE opened up dialogue with Iranian proxies and intermediaries—and diplomacy actually improved. Now the US has reasserted itself in the Middle East by killing Soleimani, Parsi writes, and the consequence will likely be more chaos, not less. | | Meanwhile, Things Are Going Well in Ukraine | | As the Soleimani killing (rightly) takes up headline space, Ukraine is quietly doing very well, writes The Washington Post's Jackson Diehl—in spite of the "abuse" it's enduring from Trump's White House and the fact that Russia still holds part of its territory.
President Volodymyr Zelensky has concluded two prisoner swaps and a gas deal with Russia, in which Moscow will pay $7 billion to export gas across Ukrainian territory; Russian President Vladimir Putin, one expert tells Diehl, is happy doing business with Zelensky and seems to respect him more than his predecessor, even if Putin's "desire to subjugate Ukraine remains undiminished." And yet, Diehl writes, Zelensky still isn't getting respect from the US, which has yet to replace chargé d'affaires Bill Taylor or invite Zelensky for the White House visit he still wants. | | Australia and the 'Pyrocene Era' | | | Australia's wildfires are a warning for the planet, fire historian Steve Pyne writes in a Guardian op-ed, ominously predicting a new "Pyrocene" Era—one in which fires like Australia's become more common and encroach further into population centers. They're also a test of climate politics in Australia, some have argued, as leaders have maintained there is no linkage between greenhouse emissions, a hotter planet, and fires like those raging now. The Washington Post levels scathing criticism in an editorial, writing that "Australia has become a poster child for the ill-effects of breakneck fossil-fuel burning … [a]nd yet it is the world's largest coal exporter, and its government has dragged its feet on curbing planet-warming emissions." | | | | | | |
