Tensions spike in Iran as ayatollahs test Trump

Iran’s retaliatory ballistic missile strikes targeting two US military bases in Iraq have upped the ante following Donald Trump’s decision to rid the world of Tehran’s terrorist warlord, Qassem Soleimani. The world is better off without Soleimani, whose aim in life “was an atomic cloud over Tel Aviv’’, as one German commentator noted. But the situation is also profoundly dangerous. The US President warned last weekend that Washington had a list of 52 Iranian sites it would hit in response to any such retaliatory strikes (one for each American hostage seized when the US embassy in Tehran was overrun 40 years ago). “Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD,” Mr Trump tweeted in response to reports that Iran was preparing to unleash missile strikes. Israeli intelligence says Iran has an arsenal of 150,000 missiles stockpiled to attempt to make good its threats to “destroy Dubai and Haifa (in Israel)’’.

After speaking with the President after the strike on the US bases, Mr Trump’s close confidant, Republican senator Lindsey Graham, described the Iranian retaliation against the Iraqi bases as “an act of war, by any reasonable definition”. Mr Trump tweeted: “All is well!” and “So far, so good!” He added, pointedly: “We have the most powerful and well-equipped military in the world, by far!”

Where all this could lead is uncertain. But Mr Trump must remain resolute after dealing with Soleimani, the mastermind behind Iran’s subversion across the Middle East who reportedly was only days away from launching another major attack. Mr Trump deserves the strong support of US allies, especially those in Europe and the Middle East. In remaining largely mute since Soleimani’s demise, the leaders of the European signatories to Barack Obama’s nuclear deal — Britain, France and Germany — have sold their nations’ interests short. So have Sunni monarchies in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar, all of which house US military personnel and installations.

Tehran’s goal of turning Iraq into a satellite, if it was allowed to achieve it, would be a triumph for the Shia ayatollahs’ regional ambitions, with far-reaching implications for the Gulf and Israel. The Iranian missile assault on the al-Asad military base used by US and coalition forces as well as the Iraqi army, and the attack on the US special operations base in Irbil, underline the importance of Mr Trump keeping the 5000 troops he has in Iraq in place. Coalition forces who have been working alongside the US troops, including Australia’s contingent of 350, remain in place, for now.

Following Soleimani’s demise, Mr Trump, presciently, dispatched several thousand more troops to the Middle East. He now has an estimated 80,000 in the region amid reports of US heavy bombers being refuelled on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. The intensity of sentiment in Iran was seen in the mania of the black-clad millions at Soleimani’s funeral. It was reminiscent of the scenes as fanatics swept Ayatollah Khomeini to power in 1979. But it is more menacing than simple religious fervour.

The reality facing Israel and the West is that Iran has the largest missile force in the Middle East. Its ballistic missiles can strike targets as far as 2000km away. Its Hezbollah proxy’s arsenal of 150,000 rockets is trained on Israel. Revolutionary Guards commander General Hossein Salami raised concern when he said at Soleimani’s funeral, “we will take revenge … we will set fire to the place they love”. Despite the fact that neither Iran nor the US want to escalate the tensions into a war, Tehran’s rhetoric should also be seen in the context of its resuming uranium enrichment, which it agreed to stop in its deal with Mr Obama. The Wall Street Journal, citing nuclear experts, reported last week that Iran could be “only a few months away from being able to accumulate enough nuclear fuel for one atomic bomb by late (northern hemisphere) spring”.

As Greg Sheridan writes on Thursday, although the tension has escalated dangerously Mr Trump may have won a limited, but important, tactical victory. If the limit of the Iranian response to the American killing of Soleimani is two missile barrages, which did not kill any Americans, the President may have changed the rules of a part of modern warfare in a way that helps the US. But there are a thousand ways in which the situation can go wrong. As he wrote: “The Iranians may not be finished and Trump may yet face diabolical questions of when and how to escalate his own response.’’