Are the US and Iran headed for war?

On Thursday night, President Donald Trump ordered the US military to assassinate Qassim Suleimani, a man widely considered Iran's second most important leader. Following the successful strike, fury has erupted in Iran. Threat levels have escalated in both Tehran and Washington. Are the US and Iran headed for war?

Let's take a step back.

Some will accuse Trump of "wagging the dog" to divert attention from the free flow of impeachment-related accusations against him in Washington and play tough guy for a political base that backs the use of American military power, particularly against enemies like Iran.


But before Americans indulge in a reflexive partisan response to this event, take a look at the man US forces just killed. Suleimani was leader of the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. In that role, he has launched both military and terrorist attacks on Americans and US allies across the Middle East.

Trump, like many US presidents before him, has warned that the US will act forcefully against those who kill Americans. Suleimani and the Iran-backed militia groups he leads inside Iraq are responsible for recent attacks on the US Embassy in Baghdad—and for a recent attack on US forces in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk that killed an American contractor and wounded US soldiers.

In short, Trump drew a red line. Iran crossed that line, more than once. Iran's supreme leader tweeted that Trump "can't do anything" about it; Trump proved him wrong. Military machismo aside, Suleimani is a man of war who has killed Americans, and Iran walked directly and deliberately into this mess.

Yes, Donald Trump has run an often erratic foreign policy, including in the Middle East. (See the endless confusion about status of US forces in Syria. Heck, see the unilateral decision to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal that got this whole cycle of escalation started.) But his actions say he wants to bring US troops home from the Middle East, not kick off another endless Middle East war that will cost the US dearly in blood and treasure.

There's another reason to believe all-out war will be avoided: Iran's leaders are angry, but they aren't irrational. They know their regime can't survive an unlimited confrontation with a military superpower.

So, if neither Trump nor Iran's leaders want war, what is there really to fear from this event?

Plenty.

First, Iran must retaliate for the killing of Suleimani. This is a man who answered directly to Iran's supreme leader, not its president. This assassination, though it occurred inside Iraq, is a strike at the heart of Iran's regime.

Iran will probably attack US ships in the Persian Gulf, and there will be attacks on US soldiers inside Iraq. Trump has shown that, while he would rather reduce than expand the US presence in a region far less important to the US than it was even a decade ago, he will attack Iran. In other words, it's one thing to say that neither side wants war. That doesn't mean they won't stumble into one.

But the bigger problem for Trump may come from the government of Iraq. That's where the US and Iran have done most of their fighting in the recent past. Thanks to the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is now a democracy. A raucous one, to be sure, but it's a genuine democracy. As in Iran, the clear majority of Iraqis are Shia Muslims. And though Shia in Iraq and Iran don't always share common interests, the current Iraqi government is much more closely aligned with Iran than with any other government. It needs Iran's money and its military support, and while Western powers come and go from the Middle East, Iraq knows Iran will always be its neighbor and must be accommodated.

That's why the Iraqi government will now sharply increase pressure on US forces to leave Iraq once and for all. While Donald Trump might want to pull US troops back, he won't respond kindly if he believes they're being pushed.

Nor will Trump appreciate the hedging from some US allies. French President Emmanuel Macron appears to agree with Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to a statement from the Kremlin, that the killing of Suleimani "could seriously worsen the situation in the region." In addition, the Saudis, the closest US ally in the Arab Middle East, may begin to wonder how long Trump can be relied on to protect Saudi interests against Iranian attack if things get hot.

There's another worry inside Iraq. Suleimani was the leader of the various militia groups that have carried out many acts of violence there. Temporarily without a leader, and furious over his death, some of them may act on their own against US forces, with or without explicit backing from Tehran.

But the ultimate wildcard here is Donald J Trump. He is a commander in chief who acts impulsively. Reportedly, neither US congressional leaders nor US allies were warned in advance of the strike on Suleimani.

And this is an election year in the United States. Trump knows this is the year Americans will render their judgment on his presidency. No president wants to appear weak, but Trump has built his personal and political brand on toughness and decisive action. How will he respond when Iran kills more Americans? When Iraq sends him an eviction notice? When he hears criticism from Europe or from Democrats?

The cameras are on. The spotlight is hot. The world is watching.

No one rational wants all-out war. But that's no guarantee that, as the temperature rises, cooler heads will prevail.

Amid the current need to continually focus on the COVID-19 crisis, it is understandably hard to address other important issues. But, on March 31st, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed landmark facial recognition legislation that the state legislature passed on March 12, less than three weeks, but seemingly an era, ago. Nonetheless, it's worth taking a moment to reflect on the importance of this step. This legislation represents a significant breakthrough – the first time a state or nation has passed a new law devoted exclusively to putting guardrails in place for the use of facial recognition technology.

For more on Washington's privacy legislation, visit Microsoft On The Issues.

Read our roundup of COVID-19 themes and stories from around the globe.

Europe skirts US sanctions to help Iran: While the US insists on tightening the sanctions noose around COVID-stricken Iran, European countries are now sending medical equipment. To do so, they are using for the first time a system called INSTEX, a back-channel financial mechanism created a year ago that allows Europe to maintain trade ties with Iran despite US sanctions. Recall that in 2018 the US pulled out of the multilateral Iran nuclear agreement and reimposed crippling sanctions – the Europeans stayed in the deal and have tried to salvage it. To date, Iran has suffered more than 3,000 deaths from COVID-19, one of the highest tolls in the world. Some say that Iran's failure to contain the contagion has been complicated further by US sanctions, which have thwarted the Islamic Republic's ability to fund medical imports. Tehran has urged the US to ease sanctions to no avail, but Ayatollah Khamenei has also, citing some wild conspiracy theories about the coronavirus' origin, refused medical aid from Washington.

More Show less

Laid-off hospitality workers tell their stories in their own words.

Ian Bremmer breaks down the massive economic toll the COVID-19 pandemic is taking on the hospitality and service industries in America and around the globe. In the U.S. alone, millions could face unemployment as businesses struggle to stay afloat.

Over the past decade or so, the European Union has weathered the global financial crisis, a migrant crisis, and the rise of populist nationalism. Sure, it's taken its fair share of bumps and bruises along the way, but the idea of a largely borderless Europe united by common democratic values has survived more or less intact.

Then came the coronavirus. The global pandemic, in which Europe is now one of the two main epicentres, is a still-spiralling nightmare that could make those previous crises look benign by comparison. Here are a few different ways that COVID-19 is severely testing the 27-member bloc:

The economic crisis: Lockdowns intended to stop the virus' spread have brought economic activity to a screeching halt, and national governments are going to need to spend a lot of money to offset the impact. But some EU members can borrow those funds more easily than others. Huge debt loads and deficits in southern European countries like Italy and Spain, which have been hardest hit by the outbreak so far, make it costlier for them to borrow than more fiscally conservative Germany and other northern member states. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, this imbalance nearly led the bloc's common currency, the Euro, to unravel.

More Show less