Will Iowa Democrats Vote Against Trump’s Successful Mideast Policy?
By Hayvi Bouzo
Iranian proxies across the Middle East are still reeling from the loss of their commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, to a missile strike ordered by President Trump. Meanwhile in Iowa, socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has surged to the top of the polls, in part by saying he will undo everything Trump has done to put the Islamic Republic of Iran on the defensive. Before they head into next Monday’s caucuses, Iowa voters should pause to consider why Trump’s policy, especially his decision to keep a small force in Iraq, has done so much to protect Americans from both the Islamic State and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The death of Qasem Soleimani was the biggest blow ever dealt to the Iranian regime’s ambitions to become the dominant power in the Middle East. Thanks to Soleimani, the Islamic Republic has a tight grip on the governments of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Taking out Soleimani was both bold and justified. Soleimani’s forces tried to overrun the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and crossed a red line by killing an American citizen in Iraq late in December.
Trump’s predecessors hesitated to take out Soleimani because experts warned that the Iranian regime’s revenge would be terrible. It was not. The regime fired a dozen missiles at American bases in Iraq, but did not kill a single troop, although a few dozen were injured. The president’s critics kept saying that he had started World War Three, but Iran backed down once it saw the cost of picking a fight.
Politicians usually like to stick with a winning strategy, even if was someone else’s idea, but not Senator Sanders. He wants to bring back the flawed nuclear deal with Tehran that Trump rejected, which would mean lifting tough sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Sanders also wants to pull the last 5,000 or so U.S. troops out of Iraq, effectively turning the country over to Soleimani’s militias.
The president and his top advisers have frequently explained why the nuclear deal was so bad, plus the Iranian regime was caught cheating twice by Israeli agents, who exposed Tehran’s hidden nuclear archive as well as a warehouse with traces of radioactive nuclear material.
However, the administration has not said nearly as much about why keeping a small force in Iraq is such an important part of the U.S. strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic. The Tehran regime wants to force U.S. troops out of Iraq to maintain its own power and influence there. Iraq is different from the other countries Tehran controls because it has large oil reserves, is not isolated diplomatically, and is an active part of the global economy.
Iran has plenty of oil, but can barely sell it because of U.S. sanctions. The country has been in a deep recession for two years and its inflation rate is near 40 percent. Iraq can serve as the breathing tube for Iran’s economy, especially if U.S. forces go home.
American voters have made clear that they to end the endless wars that began after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and Trump has made clear that he agrees those who elected him. Yet Trump also knows that Barack Obama’s rushed withdrawal from Iraq encouraged the Islamic Republic’s infiltration, strengthened Soleimani’s proxy militias, and—worst of all—unleashed terrorist groups like the Islamic State, that would soon kill Americans. As a result, Obama had to send American back into Iraq, except now the situation was far worse than before.
At first, Trump seemed to ignore this warning. He ordered a complete U.S. withdrawal from Syria to show that unlike other presidents, he could end the endless wars. But he soon saw that the Iranian regime, the Islamic State, Turkey and other bad actors were ready to exploit the U.S. departure. For now, Trump has decided to keep several hundred U.S. troops in Syria to protect the oil fields, and help hunt down the remaining Islamic State terrorists.
The administration has also recognized the similarity between Syria and Iraq. As in Syria, U.S. troops in Iraq play a key role in helping fight the Islamic State. The troops are not there to fight Iran, but just their presence makes it harder for the Iranian regime’s proxy forces to operate.
Of course, the Iranian regime is not giving up despite the death of Soleimani. It is using its ties to members of the Iraqi parliament to push for the removal of America’s troops out of the country. Less than a week after Soleimani’s death, the parliament voted in favor of expelling U.S. forces from Iraq, although the resolution was not binding. In addition, the vote did not reflect the position of key groups. Kurdish and Sunni members of parliament boycotted the vote, in which only Shiite members participated.
If Iraqi Shiites really wanted U.S. troops to leave, one practical solution would be to maintain an American force in the autonomous Kurdistan region as well as Sunni majority areas in western Iraq. The Kurdish fighters known as Peshmerga (or “those who face death”) fought bravely alongside U.S. forces against the Islamic State, and welcome American support.
U.S. troops in Sunni majority areas can help prevent a resurgence of the Islamic State, which now conducts guerrilla operations. It would also protect Sunnis from sectarian cleansing at the hands of Iranian-backed Shiite militias, who have a long record of such killings.
Sustaining a small but effective U.S. presence in Iraq is necessary to keep the Islamic State down while containing the hostile regime in Tehran. Iowa Democrats and all American voters should look at mistakes and see the difference ending wars responsibly, and ending them in a reckless manner that turns out to be much more costly to American lives and national security.
