US-IRAN CONFLICT : Are we headed for the World War III ?

• OVERVIEW:
On 13th January 2020, The Commerce Society of Shri Ram College Of Commerce organised a Round Table Conference for its members on the very happening topic “US-Iran Conflict: Are we headed for the World War III ?” The participating members represented the stakeholders namely, The United States, Iran , Iraq, China, Saudi Arabia, United kingdom, India and the Members of the International Press.

• SETTING THE WHEEL OF RTC IN MOTION:
The RTC came to near end with every country taking their stance. India, UK and Saudi Arabia took neutral stand demanding peace to prevail while The US and Iran had their own opinions and blame game throughout . However, Iraq and China supported Iran throughout questioning US intentions.

• COUNTRY IN QUESTION: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The US terming as a defensive action stated their reasons to kill Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general terming it as a correct decision as they could not let any harm to their citizens as they believed he was a threat to the US and was fueling civil wars. They could not wait till the mishap would happen. Talking about their earlier contract, US said they withdrew because Iran started importing weapons to other countries breaching contract. They even stated that Soleimani was a threat for world even though he may be a hero for his own nation . On an all, The US completely stated the attack as a defensive and correct measure.

• SCHOOL OF THOUGHT: IRAN

Iran of the view that it was a pre emptive strike reminded about 1950 when US destroyed its democracy by overthrowing its democratically elected Prime Minister, Mossadegh and restore Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. They said that US had no proofs and criticised the imposed sanctions on installing democratic system. Iran alleged US of harming their interest by destroying their democracy through sanctions and stated that every person is not good in US after Trump stating Iranian as terrorists. They feel threatening their cultural sites is unethical saying what US did is illegal.

• OPINION OF IRAQ STAKEHOLDERS:
Firm in its decision from the very beginning, Iraq supported the vary views of Iran but also said that both the countries need to maintain better relations and should find the midway for the ongoing problems so that the economy do not affect. The country standing against the killing talked about the domino effect. However, through its way Iraq also did not support the sanctions put on Iran and even condemned the US tweet “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon”. Against the exceeded authorised US troops it held US responsible for the political instability. It even raised a question as to why US did not go for an another procedure against the General Soleimani.

• STANDS OF THE OTHER NATIONS:
India of the view that War was not a solution kept it neutral way standing against the US sanctions on Iran pointing out Why are all the countries thinking of War and not about peace. But Surprisingly on their instant if US forces it to stop imports from Iraq, they held with keeping up with the Import from Iran, keeping friendly relations with all through better deals and communication.China of the rational view supported Iran condemning the ongoing situation and wanting both the countries to safeguard their interest, be at peace and even asked how US can justify its claim as the biggest economy. However, it said that the country believe in peace and diplomacy. UK declaring itself as an ally of US, was of the view that killing was in good faith and war only brings destruction and even questioned the inability of Iran to bring stability in its own country. But UK also pointed that it was necessary for US to follow legal procedure concluding that it will always be a believer of peace in the world. Moreover, Saudi Arabia mentioning brotherly relations with Iran raised its voice against the US as it didn’t inform about the situation although they were in the same alliance. They are also against Iraq for disrupting its oil facilities due to sanctions on Iran.

• THE QUESTION-ANSWER TIME:
Beginning with the session where the members of The International Press and the Stakeholders questioned and demanded clarifications , the first stakeholder questioning US, which was clearly under-prepared with its clarifications to every question- the country is sensitive about its citizens and everything done was mainly a defensive action justifying whether the attack on General Soleimani or breaking international law. It also clarified that The attack was not a political move by Donald Trump for gaining popularity for elections. However, it made a controversial remark at the end by terming General Soleimani as a “terrorist” and rejecting peace until the terrorists are removed from Iran. Iran on being asked about China supporting it said that it is looking for better trade relations and communication with China, which may be of advantage during the US-China trade war. Moreover, India went on with its decision of importing oil from Iran and Iraq even after its ally US forces it to go for other countries.

• CONCLUSION:
The RTC brought forward the vary personal, political and economic interests of the different stakeholders. The views of Iraq and Iran mainly concentrated towards the withdrew of the sanctions imposed by the US on Iran in order to avoid retaliation against US by Iran. India along with UK, China and Iraq raised their concern to end the ongoing feud and wanted both US and Iran to come at peace to favour their own economic interests. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, wanted to save its own economic interests of not getting its oil import disrupted by any. In nutshell, All the stakeholders believed that this Conflict is not a start to any World War III instead both these countries should come at peace, rethink over their decisions as there is no mistake of Common man who may be affected from this feud to which US concluded that It rejects peace until the terrorists are removed from the country.