To Take A Stand
By Rafael M. Alunan III
At the start of 2020, I was asked what the year would be like. I replied, “50-50.” I was just being facetious. It could very well turn out to be worse.
Over a period of two weeks, the world was rocked by rapidly escalating events in the Middle East triggered by a US decapitation strike on Jan. 2 that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. He headed the Quds Force, built Iran’s terror networks in the region, and was high on Iran’s power ladder. His arc of influence stretched out to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. He blazed a trail of death and destruction for decades with well-funded proxies — Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Houthi rebels, Shiite militia groups, and terrorist groups outside the Middle East.
Claiming that a strike was “imminent” after its embassy in Baghdad was besieged in the last days of December, an event that brought back bitter memories of Benghazi, the US decided to take out Soleimani on Jan. 3 in an attack that also killed ranking members of Hezbollah and his team. On Jan. 4, two Iranian hit the Balad air base. A barrage of Iranian missiles struck two large military bases on Jan. 8. Hours later, a Ukranian commercial airliner was accidentally brought down by an Iranian missile minutes after it took off from Tehran. On Jan. 9, rockets hit the Green Zone. No Americans were killed or injured.
After its retaliatory strikes, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif tweeted: “Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense… we do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.” President Donald Trump’s response hinted of deescalation: “All is well! So far, so good!” His statement the following morning ended on this note: “We want you to have a future and a great future — one that you deserve, one of prosperity at home, and harmony with the nations of the world. The United States is ready to embrace peace with all who seek it.” But he drew the red line — no nuclear Iran.
Eventually they deescalated after a harrowing year-starter I call Hell Week. Many thought the world was on the brink of World War III. Meanwhile, the court of public opinion believes the USA isn’t in the Middle East for altruistic reasons but for control of national resources. Its overextended presence in the region since 9/11, from Iraq (oil) to Afghanistan (opium poppy) is the alleged proof. For example, after the USA got out of the way of Turkey’s incursion into Syria in an anti-Kurd operation, President Trump said that the US will remain in Syria to “protect” its oil and prevent it from falling into the hands of ISIS, after proclaiming last year that the Caliphate was defeated.
Ironically, Soleimani’s proxy forces were also battling ISIS, whose fighters in the region remain in the thousands. After Soleimani’s death, the Iraqi parliament, now predominantly Shia and friendly to Iran (unlike in Saddam Hussein’s time), voted to end America’s military presence in Iraq. However, the US military leadership rejected it despite deep-seated resentment that it hasn’t done much to help the Iraqis rebuild their shattered country. It only deepens impressions about its real intent — endless war for selfish national interests, contrary to Trump’s Oct. 17, 2019 tweet: “…it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home. WE WILL FIGHT WHERE IT IS TO OUR BENEFIT, AND ONLY FIGHT TO WIN.”
The hostilities placed our OFWs in Iran and Iraq (approx. 7,600 documented) in harm’s way, prompting President Rodrigo Duterte to order their immediate repatriation. However, the deescalation could place his order on hold. Even so, they must remain alert because as we’ve seen how modern conflicts can rapidly ramp up. Our actions must flow from intelligence with 20-20 vision, not 50-50. That means asking the right questions before anything else.
• How many will want to be redeployed? OFWs may want that instead of repatriation to avoid dislocation and more hardships for them and their families.
• How many want to be repatriated immediately?
• How long will it take to reach the OFWs?
• Where should they be assembled? Speed and accuracy are of the essence. My choice would be Basra in Iraq which hosts international seaports and an airport.
The total budget and the mix of human assets to be mobilized must be reckoned with the number and real needs of the evacuees. Fortunately, PAL and Cebu Pacific stepped up and offered to bring back whoever wants to be repatriated for free. That would be the quickest, cheapest, and most efficient way to get our OFWs out of harm’s way than our AFP assets. The distance from Manila to Basra by plane is 7,596 kilometers. It will take 14.5 hours of air travel. Ships will take 25 days. Iran is eight hours away by land from there.
We’re not out of the woods yet because all warfare is based on deception. The situation is still volatile and the protagonists remain on war footing. What should we expect in the near future? According to John Raine, Senior Adviser for Geopolitical Due Diligence of the International Institute for Strategic Studies: “Regardless of who drew the knife first, the nature of the fight has now changed. The US will likely continue to use non-military means but with a clear readiness to use lethal force.” Iran will be fighting asymmetrically while the US needs to find the elusive combination of techniques, capabilities, and diplomacy to counter it.
The global community though can’t be passive and allow these two countries to determine humanity’s fate, distracted from the real existential problem the world faces — climate change.
The UN’s Security Council better get moving because everyone loses in war. In our case, we must stay focused on possible rescue, and help vigorously in peacemaking and conflict resolution. Because if the world fails to get the US, Iran, and their allies to cool it, they’re bound to get us all killed.
Rafael M. Alunan III is a former Secretary of Interior and Local Government and chairs the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations.
