Drafting

Trump’s motives come into question with execution of Iranian general STAFF EDITORIAL

Executing Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani has nothing to do with the safety of the American people. President Donald Trump ordered it for one reason and one reason only—to get reelected.

Throughout Trump’s presidency, a growing number of Democrats and Republicans alike have come to see 2020 as the year to finally get him out of office. While the idea of a new president excites many people all across the world, the idea is a great deal less feasible now because the American people historically re-elect during wartime.

Trump’s approval ratings have stayed nearly stagnant for months, and below the 50% mark, according to FiveThirtyEight. When the conflict brought Trump’s recent impeachment process to a pause, the motives of the severity of his retaliation came into question. Despite impeachment without removal only really being the equivalent of an asterisk in a history textbook, it may impact the spark he once had with supporters for the 2020 election. In a world that feeds off shock value, his action is less shocking than it would be had it come from another commander in chief.

Through nearly 70 years of conflict between the U.S. and Iran, spanning 12 different presidencies, the situation too closely mirrors the action that former President Bill Clinton took two decades ago. It is not a coincidence that during Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, he ordered air strikes on Iraq without congressional support. Trump’s timing couldn’t have been more perfect, at least for his political reign—and gain. On top of distracting from his impeachment, the threat of a war is just what he needs for re-election. Trump claimed that Soleimani was an immediate threat and recent actions could back that up. On Dec. 27, a proIranian militia attacked an Iraq-U.S. military base with 30 rockets, killing one U.S. interpreter and injuring three soldiers. Trump’s reprisal was five air strikes on Iranian-backed militia, Kata’ib Hezbollah, killing 24, and injuring even more. On Dec. 31, thousands of protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad with molotov cocktails. Less than a month later, a suspected militia attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad wounded one person lon Jan. 27. Despite the Pentagon presenting alternatives, Trump’s retaliation in the Iranian conflict upped the ante: killing a powerful military leader in Iran.

This is precisely the advantage Trump needed. His campaign has made no secret of his separation from the “traditional” Republicans, twisting the party’s image and forming a group of die-hard alt-right supporters. Although throughout his presidency, he’s slowly lost some of his once loyal disciples. A number of fellow Republican politicians have even gone as far to announce their opposition to him in the 2020 primary elections. Trump is betting on a long history of Americans re-electing presidents during wartime.

The trend of re-election during wartime has stretched all throughout U.S. history. From James Madison in the War of 1812, it’s even stood its ground in relatively recent years with Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon in the Vietnam War, as well as George W. Bush during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. With the unspoken tradition being over 200 years old, Trump’s odds, and ego, have skyrocketed.

Along with distracting from his impeachment and the historical reelection trends, Trump’s killing of Soleimani is even gaining sympathy from some Democrats. Although she also criticized Trump and his radical decision for stirring up tensions, Elizabeth Warren, female front runner for the 2020 Democratic nomination, referred to Soleimani as a “murderer” in a Tweet, suggesting an element of approval. If the Democrats are willing to look past the fact that the U.S. invaded Iran in the first place, and offer Trump a bit of subtle praise, then there’s no doubt it will win him back some supporters on the Republican side and the swing votes.

With primaries quickly approaching, and the general election following just a few months later, Trump’s motive is crystal clear, and his actions have paved his road to re-election.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS Students with ties to Middle East share perspective on U.S. involvement in the region

By Ian Feld Co-Editor

In December, the U.S. made headlines as it carried out a remote air strike in Baghdad, Iraq and killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, who had for years tormented American troops in the Middle East, setting off a chain reaction that quickly escalated to a shockingly close call with a major conflict and public outcry over the bombing. Ordered by President Donald Trump, the U.S.’s killing of Soleimani is hardly the first instance of violent foreign policy in the Middle-East, and, as seen through the lens of MiddleEastern-Americans, it represents all that is wrong with U.S. diplomacy.

Born in Yemen, Farah Thabet, senior, moved to the U.S. at age 14. Unlike many Americans who might find it more difficult to point the finger domestically, she asserts that the U.S. is to blame for the excessive violence of the region. “Innocent people are getting hurt because of [U.S. involvement],” Thabet said.

America has a history of meddling in foreign politics in the region. This has often led to large scale conflict, either between warring Middle Eastern nations or with terrorist groups. Though claims to promoting democracy abroad resound in Washington, the true interest lies in the oil reserves located in the Middle East, which is noted by Emma Al-Samaraiy, junior and the daughter of an Iraqi father.

“I feel like in general, U.S. involvement in the Middle East is unnecessary,” Al-Samaraiy said. “They’re involving themselves in century-long conflicts in an attempt to get the oil and gain power in the region.” This sentiment is echoed by Alara Stewart, freshman, whose mother is Turkish. Stewart takes it a step further and believes the nature of U.S. involvement is purely out of economic interest.

“The way they use the Middle= East is exploitative and it involves them interfering with politics,” Stewart said. “We need good relations with the Middle-East [because of the oil].”

Regardless of the U.S.’s motivations, the killing of Soleimani undoubtedly borders dangerously close to a war crime—if not a severe lack in judgement—according to Stewart, who feels that, beyond that, could easily be the spark for future deaths in an area that is already war plagued.

“If a war started, it would be the Iranians who would suffer,” Stewart said of the current crisis. “Fortunately it looks like this one is settling down, but it could definitely happen in the future.” Furthermore, as Al-Samaraiy notes, the only thing the assassination accomplishes is further aggravating an already fragile political system in Iran. “Solemani wasn’t a good person by any means, but he did things to stabilize the Middle East,” Al-Samaraiy said. Hailing from Lebanon, Nacim Hassoun, senior, sees the current situation as just another instance of the U.S. sticking its nose into foreign affairs it should steer clear of and a perpetuation of unneeded violence. “[By killing Soleimani], you’re not only endangering the Iranian people, you’re endangering all of the people in the Middle East,” Hassoun said. “It’s been a battleground for so long and the U.S. is just introducing more conflict.” Hassoun has family and friends in Lebanon. She fears for their safety when events like those of recent occur.

“Every time I hear something that has happened because of the U.S., it’s difficult because I have family there and I can’t do anything about it,” Hassoun said.

The U.S. and Iran have an eventful past consisting of a hostage crisis, a crumbling nuclear deal, and now rising tension in a conflict that neither side can afford any further missteps in. Hassoun may sum it up best when she examines the argument that the U.S. needed to do something about the threat Soleimani posed to Americans.

“Even if it was a retaliation, there are better ways to go about fixing problems,” Hassoun said.

The trail of impeachment Source: nytimes.com

1. Allegation

A sitting president must first be accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In Trump’s case, a whistleblower submitted that an illegal Quid Pro Quo had occured.between the U.S. President and Ukraine.

2. Investigation

Following allegation, House committees are assigned to gather intelligence. This involves issuing subpoenas (order to attend court) and conducting closed-door testimony with eyewitnesses.

3. Public Hearing

The House must first vote to approve the rules of impeachment, which then allows committee leaders to publicly question witnesses. Afterwards, the intelligence committee sends their report to the judiciary committee.

4. Drafting

The Judiciary Committee decides, based on the public hearings and the intelligence report, whether or not the president’s actions are impeachable. The committee then holds a markup session in which the proposed Articles of Impeachment and their language is debated.

5. House Vote

Both sides lay out their arguments and the House debates the Articles. After, the House votes on impeachment. If a majority (50%) votes to impeach, then the President is impeached.

The execution of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani made headlines for many days, but even more attention was brought to it through an unlikely form: memes. The memes circulated the internet for many days, claiming that “World War III” would commence as a result of the assasination. The memes also included the prospect of a military draft, such as the one initiated during the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s. In the midst of all of the memes, a great deal of misinformation was spread around, leaving many in a state of confusion. The facts are this: there is no planned military draft, nor is there a ‘World War III.’ In fact, even if the United States goes to war, the military draft is not currently active, and most experts believe it’s unlikely to be activated any time soon. It’s worth saying again that not everything on the internet is true. Spreading misconceptions