As I am certain you have already read, or heard, two days ago, the US military killed one of Iran’s most decorated generals, Qassem Soleimani. Soleimani was one of the leaders of Iran’s infamous Islamic revolutionary guards.
The rationale for the killing of Solimani seems reasonable. According to US intelligence, he was involved in the recent attack on the US embassy in Iraq (its neighboring country) and had plans for further attacks against other US interests, both in Iraq and in other parts of the middle east.
The issue, as an American citizen, is not so much as to whether or not Solimani should have been terminated. It is more about the impact it will have to our allies in the middle east. Iraq, a country where we have many troops and have been “liberating” for more than a decade, called it an act of aggression.
An aggression against the country of Iraq, its state, its government and its people
Iraq Prime Minister, Adel Abdul Mahdi
The US’ act of international terrorism, targeting & assassinating General Soleimani—THE most effective force fighting Daesh (ISIS), Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al—is extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation. The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism.
Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif
Those are the quotes from two of the people that should be our closest allies in that region of the world. You can only guess what Iran’s leaders said about the action. And worse, how Iran will use it to persuade its own citizens towards an ever growing divide.
This leads us to the next issue. Soleimani was not a terrorist in the same way the media has marketed them. He did not hide, nor travel in covered convoys. According to him, he was a general for a sovereign government with whom the US had friction, but was not at war. The concern is whether or not his death will be used by Iran to start an actual war against the US and rally support from across the region. Already, Iraq, through the communication from its leaders, seems to be an eager participant, will there be others? Iran may not have nuclear weapons, yet. Will this be the push they needed to get that done? And if they do, what will that mean for global security when you have a rouge nation with the power to destroy another?
Finally, why now? I have said multiple times that Trump is scary not because of his stupidity, but because he will do anything to remain in power. As soon as Trump leaves, there will certainly be a criminal case against him. And his ex-Presidency will not be able to provide him with immunity. He’s used Twitter very wisely to make sure his voice remains atop all other voices, even when his tweets have clearly breached the company’s terms of services and the company claiming to make such exceptions only for these type of public figures. When he leaves office (whether through conviction of this impeachment, another or election), will Twitter continue to provide these exception? And if they do not, would he still be able to gather the populous support he requires in order to keep his enemies close and his prosecutors at bay?
The real answer to those questions we’ll need to wait for. However, I can assure you that I would not be surprised if Trump engineered the attack on Soleimani, even if he deserved it, to help Trump divert the news cycle from the senate trial to an actual war.
