MOSCOW (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 04th January, 2020) The killing of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force, by the United States is unlikely to result in a conventional war between Tehran and Washington, experts told Sputnik on Friday, adding that the conflict might take a form of an asymmetric and hybrid warfare that Iran could use in its own interests.
Early on Friday, the Pentagon said that Soleimani had been killed in an airstrike in Baghdad, which was authorized by US President Donald Trump. The attack also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a senior member of Iraq's Iranian-backed Shia Popular Mobilization Forces, which are believed to be behind the recent siege of the US embassy in Iraq, and 10 other people.
NATURE OF US-IRAN CONFRONTATION WILL CHANGE
Dr. Alam Saleh, a lecturer in middle East politics at the United Kingdom's Lancaster University, told Sputnik, that the nature of the confrontation between Tehran and Washington would change since, before Soleimani's killing, the sides did their best to avoid casualties.
"I don't think there will be any proper war between the two sides for sure. But Iran needs to satisfy its anger somehow and to retaliate against the US soldiers ... I would suggest that [Soleimani's killing] would be followed by an ultimatum to the US military personnel to leave certain parts of Iraq and Syria," Saleh explained.
Dr. Guy Burton, a visiting fellow at the UK LSE Middle East Centre and adjunct professor of international relations at Vesalius College in Brussels, agreed that conventional war was unlikely to result from the killing of Soleimani, adding the conflict was likely to turn into an "asymmetric and hybrid warfare."
"While the US would have the advantage in terms of sheer size, scale and firepower, they won't get that. They would need to increase the number of US troops in the region and have some bases from which to launch an invasion of Iran. So far there's no indication that the Americans want that or that their allies in the region would be prepared to give them such a base," Burton argued.
Burton noted a lack of consistency in the US policy in the Middle East, explaining that Trump pulled out troops from Syria, but, at the same time, decided to boost military presence in Iraq.
The expert suggested that the US' regional allies would not want to be on the frontline of any conflict with Iran by hosting larger numbers of troops.
"Iran would also be unlikely to resort to a conventional war. It has made use of different kinds of warfare which has varied according to the groups and theaters it has worked in. In Syria, it built up the government's conventional forces in the form of the national army while also backing militias which supported Damascus. Its association with the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon is well known and has also made common cause with groups like Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen, where their interests converge," Burton argued.
IRAN'S RETALIATION TO WEAR US DOWN
Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani vowed harsh revenge and said Tehran would retaliate against the killing of Soleimani.
Saleh suggested that Iran was prepared to directly get involved in the conflict with the United States since the situation concerns its prestige, dignity and fulfilling promises.
"When they make such a kind of obvious threat, they definitely will make it [retaliate]. They must make it actually or otherwise it will be considered a weakness. Iran at this particular stage cannot afford to look week by any means," the expert maintained.
In Burton's point of view, Tehran and its regional proxies, such as the Yemeni Houthi rebels, would continue with the kind of activities they previously resorted to � those where the chance of human casualties was low but which sent a clear message to Washington and its allies � such as a shooting of a US drone and attacking Saudi oil facilities.
"I would imagine that we will continue to see this kind of action. But it may increase in number and intensity. The goal will be one of attrition. It won't defeat the US or remove it from the region, but it will wear it down," Burton explained.
TRUMP'S ATTEMPT TO INCREASE PRESSURE ON IRAN
Speaking about the reasons for Trump to authorize the airstrikes on Soleimani's convoy, Burton said the US president might have considered it as an escalation of the so-called maximum pressure policy against Tehran that Washington had been pursuing for months. While previously, the strategy focused on sanctions and trade restrictions, now, the United States engaged in direct attacks against Iran, Burton noted, recalling that in late December, Washington attacked militia from the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah group in Iraq.
Burton noted that Trump's "impetuous nature" could also be a reason behind his decision to order the airstrikes that killed Soleimani.
"It seems to be well documented that [Trump] has a tendency to make decisions on the hoof, either overlooking or ignoring expert advice. This line of argument is somewhat linked to the assumption that he was contained during his first years as president by the presence of established military personnel like General [James] Mattis as his defense secretary and [John] Kelly as his chief of staff. The thinking is that now they're gone, there is no longer any restraint on Trump," Burton suggested.
Both Mattis and Kelly left the administration in early 2019.
According to Burton, Trump's decision might also be linked with political rivalry ahead of this year's presidential election.
"Trump's approval ratings will only go up (in the party and among his base if not the country) if he can portray himself as strong and decisive - and the conflict doesn't become prolonged. If it drags on and Iran is able to hit at American and allied military assets in a sustained way, that could damage him," Burton suggested.
Saleh, in his turn, noted that Soleimani's killing took place amid attempts of Iran and Saudi Arabia to normalize their bilateral relations.
"I think that the United States deliberately has timed to do this in order to interrupt any kind of diplomatic initiatives between Iran and Saudi Arabia or other Gulf states. There is no other reason to see [such] timing and place," the expert added.
Saleh suggested that Iran could use this situation as an opportunity to show the international community that despite being hurt so badly, Tehran can still act rationally and not resort to attacking US troops stationed in the region.
"Iran attempts probably to get some diplomatic victory first by asking certain points that the United States may give them, such as leaving a certain country before Iran attacks them. Otherwise, if the United States does not respond to such demands, Iran [would be able to] tell the international community � the United States is now hostile to our regional allies and proxies, and we are allowing ourselves to hurt the United States somewhere in the Middle East," Saleh concluded.
LIMITED INTERNATIONAL POTENTIAL TO EASE TENSIONS
"I can't see any way that rising tensions and confrontation between the US and Iran can be diverted by others. But given the likely form it will take ... this may be to Iran's advantage rather than the US," Burton argued.
In the expert's point of view, Qatar could potentially attempt to settle the crisis as a mediator, since it recently has intensified its contacts with Iran, at the same time remaining a regional ally of the United States. However, Doha's foreign policy has become less active over the past six to seven years, Burton said.
Speaking about Europe, Burton recalled that Britain, Germany and France � the EU participants of the Iran nuclear deal JCPOA � have faced difficulties establishing an instrument for maintaining trade with Iran in the wake of the US' withdrawal from the agreement.
"Given all that, it's hard to see what the Europeans could do to manage and contain rising tensions following Soleimani's killing. Compared to the US decision to withdraw from the JCPOA and impose sanctions, this is a significant escalation. And it's not clear that the Europeans are able to do much, not least because of growing differences between themselves and Trump," Burton noted.
The expert said that despite publicly supporting the nuclear deal, China and Russia have shown no signs of defending it in the wake of the US withdrawal.
"On December 30, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said that the deal should be revived or allowed to die, which suggests to me that a calculation has been made in Moscow that it makes little difference at this stage. As for China, while it's critical of the US, it doesn't want to become involved in a direct confrontation with Washington. Its entire policy in the Middle East has been predicated on that � to gain a commercial advantage while avoiding taking on any political risk or costs while doing so," Burton argued.
Meanwhile, Russia was among the states that harshly criticized the assassination of Soleimani by the United States. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the move would take a heavy toll on regional peace.
The United Kingdom said no state was interested in the further escalation of the conflict and called on the sides to ease tensions. France said in the wake of the killing that stability in the Middle East was its priority.
