Qassim Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responsible for hundreds of U.S. deaths in the Middle East, has reportedly been killed by a targeted U.S. airstrike in Baghdad.
The Defense Department has yet to confirm the news. But if it is true, Soleimani’s death is an important retaliatory move against Iran, a dangerous regime that has spent much of the past decade probing for U.S. weaknesses.
A few online ideologues are decrying Soleimani’s death as a dangerous, unnecessary act of war and an escalation of aggression that could have dire consequences for the United States in the days to come.
Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question.
The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 3, 2020
By what legal authority can US forces kill the head of Iran’s Quds Force?
Does @realDonaldTrump realize the import of this?— Barbara Slavin (@barbaraslavin1) January 3, 2020
Reasonable people can disagree on the wisdom, in principle, of targeting Soleimani. But no one should be under any illusion that the Trump admin is prepared to handle the backlash that will follow if this is true. This is a network that has the region wired and cells in the West. https://t.co/8pj4S654t7
— Ned Price (@nedprice) January 3, 2020
Congress has to assert itself and determine exactly what our Iran policy is. Did we mean to do this? Do we have any plan for what comes next? What is the legal basis for all this?
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) January 3, 2020
Ben Rhodes’s comment is particularly ironic, given his role in the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal, which was put in place despite opposition from a majority in both chambers of Congress. The legislature asserted itself then and Rhodes didn’t care. But now he does?
The Iranian leader will undoubtedly react to Soleimani’s death in a significant manner. There could be major cyberattacks against the U.S. or even covert operations around the globe or within the country. And the Trump administration will now need to develop a coherent strategy to contain the damage within Iraq and the surrounding regions.
But to suggest this assassination, if that is what it was, was not warranted is asinine. The man was a criminal and a terrorist with the blood of hundreds of U.S. soldiers on his hands. This was an act of deterrence long overdue. The world is a better place without him.
Soleimani’s death was not an act of war; it was merely a warranted defensive response to Iranian aggression. In the past few months, Iran has attacked U.S. allies in the Middle East, including NATO vessels and a Saudi Arabian petrol facility, and it has targeted U.S. military positions in Iraq with rockets repeatedly. The regime wants the U.S. out of the region, and it has been pushing the envelope to see how much we would take. By taking out Soleimani, arguably one of Iran’s most important military figures, President Trump had made it clear that the U.S. will not tolerate Iran’s aggression any longer.
Iran will try to retaliate, but its options will be limited, and now the leader knows there will be a significant risk if he does make a move. Let’s hope this is the end of it.
