I've written about General Soleimani off and on since I started to write this blog. I guess this might be one of my final blog posts about the general though the blowback from this assassination may result in future posts.
Bloomberg had the following:
Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian general who led the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds force, has been killed in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad, according to two people familiar with the development. The attack occurred near Baghdad international airport. Details about the assault remained unclear, but one of the people said an Iraqi militia leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was also killed.
Per USA Today, the US has long kept tabs on Soleimani, but never considered killing him (or at least didn't make it a priority):
For years, the U.S. military kept close tabs on Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Every day. Whom he met. What he planned. The mayhem he plotted . . . Still, the Pentagon did not attack, believing there were less volatile ways of preventing violence against U.S. interests.
The article goes on to get quotes from former government officials. Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (President Obama) stated that he never had discussions about killing Soleimani. Former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta (President Obama) seems to leave it a little more open regarding if there was discussions about killing Soleimani as USA Todays writes, ". . . Soleimani had not been targeted during his tenure."
I agree with that policy from Presidents Bush and Obama in terms of Soleimani. I think it is dangerous to take out nation-state leadership. You really don't know what the outcome might be. President Obama took out Libya's Gaddafi (with European help and is contrary to their action on Soleimani, of course). What has the result been? We have a war between western (GNA) and eastern Libya (LNA). We also have a proxy war in the country with Turkey and the United Nations backing the GNA while Russia and Egypt backs the LNA. The United States might be tacitly backing the LNA, as well. Killing Soleimani might turn out to be perfectly good policy by President Trump, but there is also a great chance for blowback as well as other unexpected negative outcomes.
Let's discuss this from a positive perspective. Why might this end up being good policy. Bloomberg writes why President Trump was willing to take action that President Bush and President Obama were not willing to take:
Trump’s move catches Iran at its weakest point in years, with the regime’s economy crushed under the weight of U.S. sanctions. That leaves Tehran, with its outdated air force and navy, in little position to respond with a direct assault against U.S. interests in the region, [former French ambassador to the U.S. and the United Nations Gerard] Araud said. Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, agreed. “The Islamic Republic is a battered regime, beset by protests at home and abroad,” he wrote.
The article also writes about how this move by President Trump changes perspectives on American foreign policy:
Three years into Donald Trump’s presidency, U.S. allies and adversaries thought they had him figured out as a leader prone to bellicose talk who rarely delivered on his boldest military threats . . . With the high-stakes drone strike against General Qassem Soleimani, one of Iran’s most venerated leaders, Trump caught Tehran -- and the rest of the world -- by surprise, restoring a sense of unpredictability that could play to his advantage as world leaders are left wondering what his endgame is in the Middle East and beyond.
WHY DID THE US TAKE THIS ACTION NOW
Was there a specific reason why President Trump decided to take this action. Via NBC:
Planned attacks against American military, diplomatic and financial targets in Lebanon and Syria comprised the imminent threat cited by U.S. officials as the reason President Donald Trump ordered the killing of top Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, multiple U.S. officials said Friday.
I would say what is the definition of "imminent?"
All the way back in December 2017, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo warned General Soleimani via a letter. The Guardian wrote:
Mike Pompeo, who has voiced staunch opposition to Iran and was this week reported to be under consideration to become secretary of state, said he sent the letter to Gen Qassem Soleimani, a leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and elite Quds Force, but the general did not read it.
“I sent a note. I sent it because he had indicated that forces under his control might in fact threaten US interests in Iraq,” Pompeo said at a defense forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute in Simi Valley, California. “He refused to open the letter – didn’t break my heart to be honest with you.
The Guardian also reported in May 2019:
Iran’s most prominent military leader has recently met Iraqi militias in Baghdad and told them to “prepare for proxy war”, the Guardian has learned.
I suppose one could argue that Soleimani was warned. Also, for awhile, the US and Iran were both fighting ISIS -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. With ISIS mostly subdued, this opened up an opportunity to no longer be aligned with Iran.
No comments:
Post a Comment