January 10, 2020
The Killing of Suleimani
The decision by President Trump to assassinate General Qassim Suleimani, a senior figure in the Iranian establishment, while he was arriving at the Baghdad Airport in Iraq, was the most pointless act of his Presidency. This killing via a drone strike makes no sense, and may dramatically harm American interests in the Middle East.
Some right-wing observers claim that Suleimani was a bad person, and that the US has used drone strikes for years against terrorists, so what is wrong with doing this? The error is that this sort of action is carried out normally against non-state actors, terrorist organizations who are able to hide in poorly governed regions where there is no law enforcement. If a terrorist was found in London or even Manila, the US would never use a drone strike in a foreign country against such a person. It would ask the local law enforcement to apprehend and arrest the individuals in question. In areas where there is no effective central government, such as ISIS ruled territory, or Yemen consumed by civil war, or the battlefield of Afghanistan or the tribal regions of Pakistan, the US would deploy a drone strike. But even in Pakistan, it never used drones without the permission of the Pakistani government, which could easily knock down American drones with its Air Force if it wanted to. For the US to carry out a drone strike on an Iranian general who was legally in Iraq at the Baghdad Airport is totally bizarre behavior. The Iraqi government was allowing US military forces to be in Iraq for one purpose only: to fight ISIS. This strike was done without Iraqi permission.
Secondly, when striking a terror group, going after its small number of senior leaders and operatives makes some sense. In the case of Suleimani, he was an Iranian general carrying out Iran’s foreign policy. Killing him doesn’t change Iran’s policy, and Suleimani was not some critical figure who could not be replaced. Suleimani’s role for the last two decades has been the primary conduit for Iran’s support and cultivation of Shia militia forces in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. He played a key role in organizing Shia forces and support that allowed Bashar Assad to win the Syrian Civil War. He also helped create and support Shia militias in Iraq that were responsible for hundreds of attacks on US forces during the Bush years, and helped to stop the ISIS takeover of Iraq in 2014. Suleimani was certainly a powerful and important player, but killing him does not stop or change Iran’s policies, and he is immediately replaced by others.
This act of assassinating an adversary’s officials is a very dangerous territory to get into. What is to stop Iran from targeting American officials as they go abroad? During the Cold War, although the US and the Soviet Union often supported their proxies in attacks on each other, they never directly killed agents or officers of the other side. The CIA and KGB did not go around trying to assassinate each other. Up to now, Iran and the US have followed similar rules. While both sides have used proxies for their benefit and against the other, they have not directly attacked each other. Such a course can lead to undesired escalation ending in full scale war.
What will be the practical consequences of this impulsive act? It is possible Iran will seek direct physical vengeance against the US, perhaps by killing American diplomats or soldiers elsewhere in the Middle East. Iran would likely do such a thing through a proxy, and not with direct Iranian military action. Iran realizes they are very weak compared to the US, so escalating a conventional military confrontation would be foolish.
However, there are three very obvious and severe consequences the US will face. First, the Iranians will use their leverage over the Iraqi Shias to force the US out of Iraq entirely. The Iraqi Parliament already voted for that, although such a decision is in the hands of the Prime Minister only. If the assassination of Suleimani means that the US has to withdraw from Iraq, that can hardly be considered a geopolitical victory by Trump. Secondly, and more importantly, Iran may very well go all out to build a nuclear bomb. While Trump withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2018, Iran continued to comply at the behest of the Europeans, Russia, and China. At this point, no one is going to blame them for withdrawing also. Iran has the know-how to build a bomb, and likely, could do so within two years. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will be a catastrophic setback for US policy. The third consequence is internal to Iran. The clerical regime has been facing mounting protests and dissent at home, and has even killed hundreds of demonstrators in the last few months in order to stay in power. With this killing, the best hope for change within Iran has been crippled, pulling the rug out from the domestic opposition to the Iranian regime.
Trump has been very lucky in his first three years. He has not faced any grave domestic or international crisis. But this time he has created a crisis where there didn’t need to be one. While his devotees at Fox News will convince the right-wingers in America that such actions make sense and are justified, the rest of the country will be appalled by the negative consequences to come.
