The targeted killing of Iranian war leader Qassem Soleimani, in response to attacks on Americans in Iraq and in order to interrupt plans for further attacks, unleashed a flood of reactions from almost every corner of the world and all over the political spectrum. American reactions were sharply divided, mostly along party lines. And the controversy produced what many believe to be the single most craven tweet in recent history, from Hollywood actress Rose McGowan:
Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani
Somewhat less embarrassing but entirely formulaic were the responses of the various Democratic candidates to replace Trump, almost all of whom called his action “reckless” and likely to lead to further escalation, or even war. J Street, the anti-Israel lobby masquerading as pro-Israel, said,
This highly dangerous step, taken without congressional authorization [actually not required – vr], could trigger a disastrous escalation costing the lives of thousands and lead our country into a devastating new war of choice in the Middle East.
A great many reactions took the form of “don’t tug on Superman’s cape because you don’t know how it will end.” Even though Iran is anything but Superman – the US is roughly a zillion times more powerful militarily – these commentators argue that Iran has numerous avenues to damage the US, and Trump isn’t competent to deal with the consequences.
There’s no doubt that Soleimani’s replacement will mount some kind of revenge attack, and it will at least be intended to kill people. But the American home front is unlikely to bear the brunt of it (McGowan needn’t worry); it is likely to be aimed at US troops in the Middle East, Israelis, or both. Indeed, the IDF was immediately placed on alert for rocket attacks or terrorism, and PM Netanyahu flew home early from Greece to meet with his cabinet. Despite this, practically everyone in Israel applauded Trump’s action. Even the editor-in-chief of the left-leaning Ha’aretz newspaper, Aluf Benn, saw it as a good move for Trump, both politically and strategically.
I think this is because Israelis have seen the steady advance of Iranian influence in the region from up close, and they are concerned that the regime is not far from reaching its goal of creating a Shiite crescent through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. At the same time, Iran has destabilized Yemen, which just happens to control a strategic choke point at the outlet of the Red Sea, and from which it can harass its Arab enemies, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
The strategy – Soleimani’s strategy – has been to create and support Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria which, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, will ultimately take control of the country and do Iran’s bidding. Soleimani brilliantly took advantage of the rise of ISIS and the chaos in Syria to increase Iranian power, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead and displaced inhabitants. His goal was to eliminate American influence from the Middle East, acquire the oil resources now in the hands of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, destroy Israel, and establish a Shiite caliphate across the region. Ultimately, the acquisition of nuclear weapons would make any challenge to Iranian hegemony impossible. And who knows what longer-term objectives, in Europe or even North America, he might have had?
The destruction of Israel is essential to the Iranian plan. Israel is seen both as an outpost of the US and the West, and therefore an obstacle, but also an illegitimate Jewish sovereign state in a region that according to Islamic ideology, must be 100% Muslim. The Ayatollahs want to lead the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. Hence there are both strategic and religious reasons for Iran’s enmity to Israel.
The Obama Administration believed that by appeasing and paying off the Iranian regime, it could prevent direct attacks on Americans and establish a working relationship with the regime. But the Iranians negotiated circles around the US team (led by the less-than-bright John Kerry), achieving a deal which not only did not prevent them from getting nuclear weapons, but guaranteed that within a few years they could proceed with their program. It reduced the strength of UN resolutions limiting their development of ballistic missiles, removed sanctions – most of the text of the JCPOA is a list of sanctions to be nullified – and provided an influx of cash that could be and was used to finance the terrorist militias. It also provided a weak, easily bypassed inspection routine that could not be depended upon to prevent cheating.
Another part of the Obama strategy was to try to buy cooperation from Iran by weakening Israel, to the point that she would be indefensible (this policy was first enunciated in the 2006 “Iraq Study Report” to which Obama confidant Ben Rhodes contributed).
The administration thought it could “bring Iran into the family of nations” this way, but the Iranian regime’s goals were to dominate, not to cooperate. The misunderstanding was massive and fatal. And what is unclear about “death to America?”
The recent series of attacks against American forces and interests in the area that culminated in the attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad was intended to break America’s will and precipitate a withdrawal from Iraq and Syria. And this time it was the Iranians who misunderstood. Trump was not prepared to tolerate the deaths of any more Americans. And he understood well the political consequences of “another Benghazi” or “another Iranian hostage crisis.”
For several years, Israel has been fighting a quiet war against Iran, trying to prevent its buildup in Syria, its introduction of precision-guided missiles into Lebanon, and other strategic activities. Israel has been almost entirely alone in this fight.
Now, in one blow, Trump removed a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, numerous Israelis and other Jews, and hundreds of thousands of Arabs and non-Arabs in several nations of the Middle East. Trump interrupted the Iranian plan to dominate the region, perhaps permanently. The Iranian-controlled militias in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria will be orphaned. Who knows, maybe the next step will be to put an end to the Iranian nuclear weapons project.
It is even imaginable that the removal of Soleimani will be the trigger for the replacement of the medieval regime of the Ayatollahs by the Iranian people, and the return of Iran to the civilized world after more than 40 years of darkness. May it come to pass!
Another excellent article…
Yes, hopefully positive geopolitical consequnces
may arise from the most decisive military action taken by
the US in a decade+. Eliminating Soleimani
and sending an unambiguous message to Iran
was the right thing to do.
Fox News applauded Trump and seemed to better understand that taking out the head of the snake was a good thing. I was surprised however how little was said about how great the effect of this blow might be. Solomeini was not just another terrorist or another hostile leader. He was the mastermind of Iran’s plan to dominate the Middle East, the one who helped set up the Hizbollah control of Lebanon, the Assad Syrian recovery, the moving of Iraq into the Iranian camp. He was responsible for murdering American troops on a variety of occasions.
No one spoke about the kind of blow this might be to the Iranian regime. They can put someone else in his place but they cannot really replace him.
Again as you say the response divided in the US along party lines. I think the Democrats who strongly criticized Trump are either stupid or cynical.