The Assassination of Qasim Suleimani within the context of China-Iran-Iraq Relations

The most important commander of Iran, Qasim Suleimani, was killed by a missile attack in Iraq on U.S. President Donald Trump’s orders, the tension in the region began to rise immediately, and a possible U.S.-Iran conflict started to be mentioned. The attack was planned in secret and the operation suddenly fell on the world agenda.

The U.S. has not responded to Iran's downing of a U.S. aircraft[1] and the latter’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz with any greater retaliation, and thus has kept tensions low. In addition, the US has resisted the pressure of the Gulf countries and Israel to take deterrent steps against Iran and did not take any military steps against Iran. After the U.S. attack against the Hezbollah Brigade, Iran acted in a way to escalate tension and Iran-backed Hashd al-Shaabi armed groups raided the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. Writing the phrase “Qasim Suleimani is my leader”[2] on the embassy building has brought a new dimension to the process.

Perceived as a supra-political figure by a large part of the Iranian people, Suleimani was known as the commander of the Quds Force, who had a direct line to religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, implemented the military dimension of Iran’s policies in regional countries, and benefited from the discretionary fund. In some recent developments, Suleimani began to stand out as the second man after Khamenei in terms of effectiveness.

Although the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Iraq constitutes the most significant reason for the operation against Suleimani, Trump’s rhetoric of withdrawing his troops from the Middle East and abandoning the role of his country as the policeman in the Middle East, on the one hand, and the murder of Suleimani in the Iraqi territory by the U.S., on the other, are in contradiction. At this point, it can be held that global factors come into play and affect the process. Furthermore, it can also be thought that these global factors have turned into a common opinion on foreign policy among some of the groups that are active in U.S. foreign policymaking processes. Indeed, it seems difficult to explain Trump’s move with the policies he has followed up to now.

Why did Trump choose Suleimani as the target?
To begin with, we come across the question of why Suleimani was targeted. Trump supported the expectations of Israel and some Gulf countries against Iran with sanctions until the murder of Suleimani but refrained from conducting a stronger intervention by saying that the region should solve its problems by itself. In this sense, China, Russia and Iran’s joint naval exercises[3], which had been held before the killing of Suleimani, attracted attention. Trump has targeted China as the biggest threat since the very day he took office and this has been reflected in a U.S. National Security Document.[4]

Trump's sanctions against Iran have been evaluated as being used as a means of competition with China in the context of global politics[5]. Iran has recently become a crucial oil supplier for China and a country with which serious collaborations have been developed. Because of the importance China attaches to Iran in the Belt and Road Initiative, the instability in trade routes that offer the most important contribution to China's growth may be a prominent step in the U.S. strategy to contain China. China has developed bilateral trade with Iran and made investments in and developed strategies for countries that are on important trade routes. Trump has at least slowed China’s relations with Iran through sanctions to the latter, and China has turned the direction of oil imports toward Saudi Arabia. In other words, the joint naval exercise of China, Russia and Iran may be considered to be a message to the U.S. in global terms. On the other hand, some may interpret that Trump responded to this message with harsh retaliation by targeting Suleimani. In addition, considering that the wing in the U.S., which defends the need to take harsh military measures against Iran and is represented by former national security adviser John Bolton, supports this attack, the U.S. can take military steps that will affect the world by unilateral decisions if it provides internal integrity in U.S. foreign policy. In other words, it can be argued that Trump’s China policies and the Iranian policies represented by Bolton intersect in the process of the killing of Suleimani. In this sense, even though the killing of Qasim Suleimani does not correspond with Trump’s Middle East policies, it seems to be in accord with his global policies.

Why Did the U.S. Carry out the Attack on Iraqi Territory?
Following the killing of Qasim Suleimani, Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul Mahdi met Chinese ambassador to Baghdad Zhang Tao and the parties made written statements[6] after these negotiations, which reveal the impact of the competition with China on Trump’s decision. In Abdul Mahdi’s explanation, the expressions of “agreement with China is now a matter of public opinion” and “we will apply our agreement with China without hesitation” point to the attitude adopted by the Iraqi administration in the U.S.-China competition. However, it is worth noting that there are parties in Iraq that do not agree with this attitude of the administration. In addition, it is reportedly said that Abdul Mahdi mentioned the agreements with China in his speech in a closed session held in the parliament and this caused Trump’s reaction. In the past months, Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Mahdi demonstrated his open support for the Belt and Road Initiative during his visit to China. Considering the significance of Iraq, which has an important position among China’s oil suppliers and is supported by Chinese investments, it becomes more understandable why Trump targeted Suleimani in Iraq. It is also quite possible that this American strategy might be counterproductive. That is to say, this attack may fuel hatred of America in the region and threaten American existence in the region.[7]

Consequently, it can be evaluated such that Trump aims to make regional and global gains by killing Suleimani in Iraq. Thus, Iran, an important oil supplier for China, will be quarantined and Iraq, the other oil supplier, will be prevented from turning its face to China, and the development of the Belt and Road Initiative will also be hindered. In addition, while wanting to get rid of U.S. control, Iraq has been subjected to serious intimidation and Iran has become an open target. Trump's strategy of avoiding costs and withdrawing troops in his Middle East policies remained in the background against the Chinese threat. In the long run, its sustainability is questionable. Trump's statement after the retaliation of Iran let it be known that NATO would want more intervention in the Middle East in the future and this is in harmony with Trump's Middle East policy. In other words, instead of making the U.S. a direct target, Trump wants to see the presence of NATO being other actors in the region. However, it is very difficult to say on the American part that the whole country manages to comply with Trump's policy. For, in the wake of the Suleimani assassination, a letter was announced to have come to Iraq from the U.S., which contained a favorable reply regarding the Iraqi parliament’s decision upon the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Iraqi territory. Nevertheless, U.S. Defense Secretary Esper denied this letter and expressed his discomfort with the delivery of a draft text to the Iraqi authorities before it turned into a decision.

Trump might be supposed to have made great calculations with the killing of Suleimani. However, time will show how well the process has been calculated in terms of its development and results. Indeed, a step that could have serious consequences has been taken and it is not clear what this step will yield in the long run. It may also be held that Trump sees this move as one of the “last exits before the bridge”
 for the U.S. and takes the risks of such an attack. The actors that he targets are taking steps to weaken the U.S. hegemon power and this may seriously damage the U.S. presence in the region. According to the retaliation from Iran and Trump’s statements, it can be said that the tension has decreased for now. However, from now on, at least for a while, every spark that emerges will burst into flames more quickly. It turns out that, with this move, Trump wants to keep a country like Iran, that he defines as a rogue state, in line by using the hegemonic power of the U.S. and to rein back a global rival like China. Although Trump seems to have achieved this desire in the short term, anti-U.S. opposition is likely to be even stronger in the long run.

China, the global interlocutor of this issue, may want to sustain the agreements it has made with Iraq by spreading the process over the long term. However, Iran may continue to be a powder barrel as it will find it difficult to satisfy the domestic public through its current response. Although Iran's state tradition says that it should soften this attack, the answer given may be inadequate due to the reputation of Suleimani, and the discussions involving Iranian public opinion may deepen. When the rhetoric is very high and harsh, its practical expectation also increases and hard times await Iran and then the region. Being a part of the tripartite naval exercise, Russia’s future moves stand out to be quite crucial in the U.S.-China competition. Yet, Russia seems to have recently prioritized areas of cooperation with the U.S. over rivalry. In the context of U.S.-Russia-Israel relations and the process of Russia’s becoming a dynamic actor in Syria, it is possible to make these evaluations. For these reasons, considering that Russia has made the best use of U.S. policies in the Middle East, it may be thought that Vladimir Putin would not like to grab the bull by the horns in this equation.

Finally, it is useful to keep close watch over the U.S., which increases the level of troop deployment to and is focused on the region. Having experienced tensions with many countries recently, the U.S. administration seems to have made steady decisions on certain issues, and yet, some decisions may still cause serious inquiries. As a result, as seen in the Suleimani operation, the global objectives of the U.S. sometimes override its regional objectives and lead to some revisions in regional policies.

Mustafa ÖZTOP
Ph.D. Student in the Middle East Research Institute, Department of Political History and International Relations of the Middle East at Marmara University.