The Necessary Killing of Soleimani
President Donald Trump handled “World War III” brilliantly and the killing of Qassim Soleimani was completely justified.
The previous sentence contains one of the most controversial topics of recent political conversation. The reasoning behind it has been argued and debated for days following the series of events that led to the attack on a U.S. embassy in Baghdad and in turn the assassination of General Qassim Soleimani of the Iranian Quds Force.
America’s responses have ranged from Michael Moore’s apology in Farsi to Cardi B’s proposed flight to Nigeria to CNN seeking guidance from a spokesperson for terrorists. These responses demonstrate a new record in behavior that would have at one time been considered treasonous. Reddit was immediately flooded with memes depicting reinstatements of the draft and the imminent invasion of Iran in what the internet swiftly labeled “World War III.”
Celebrities and politicians alike were quick to (once again) denounce Trump as an insane despot going back on his promise to keep America out of war. However, “World War III” was a perfectly handled move of foreign policy by a brilliant tactician.
The most common talking points voiced by opponents are as follows:
1. Iran Was Following the Nuclear Deal—We Should Have Kept It to Begin With.
The reality is that President Trump pulled us out of a deal in which we should never have been involved. Sec. John Kerry admitted in a 2016 CNBC interview that some of the funds would undoubtedly go straight into the pockets of terrorists—not surprisingly, since the Department of State has labeled Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” A 2015 CNN interview with President Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice seems to suggest that the administration that designed the Iran deal was well aware of the absurdities involved.
RICE: “No Americans will be part of the IAEA inspection teams.”
BLITZER: “Now, I just want to be precise [. . .] it’s their money, what they could do with it whatever they want. If they want to give a billion dollars in weapons to Bashar al-Assad or a billion dollars to Houthi rebels in Yemen…”
RICE: “No [. . .] because they’ll still be under an arms embargo that would prevent them from sending weapons anywhere.”
BLITZER: “Well, what if they’re not sending weapons? What if they’re just sending money?”
RICE: “Well, they may be able to send money, yes.”
Then-Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell had harsh words for the deal: “The American people were led to believe that negotiations with Iran would be about stopping its nuclear program, but that’s not what the deal before us would do.” The New York Times declared in 2015 that “Even many supporters of the accord say they believe cheating by Iran is inevitable.” In the aftermath of the deal’s birth, it became clear that the rest of the world was not as keen as America to maintain honesty and integrity on the weapons front. International Business Times reported that “The Iran deal. . . prohibits Iran from making weapons deals for five years and from buying missile technology for eight years. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said. . . that during those years ‘weapons supplies will be possible after corresponding procedures. . .’”
There was no reason not to believe that Iran would do everything in its power to find loopholes in the deal and accomplish its purposes of creating greater and greater destructive capability. Former Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley states in her recent autobiography With All Due Respect that Iran was developing “ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons.” She was right. The Washington Institute declares, “. . . there is ample precedent for high-precision, nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.” Those who blame the current conflict on the president’s 2018 decision to back out of the deal must come to understand that the United States gained no direct benefit from supporting it.
2. Trump Threatened Cultural Sites
Trump’s entire public dialogue with the ruling body of Iran was a political tactic to keep them unsure regarding his next move. Political commentator Michael Knowles has compared this to Ronald Reagan’s “peace through shows of strength” strategies. The international law against threatening cultural sites that is being touted stems from the Geneva Convention, Rule 38: Attacks Against Cultural Property. However, the exact parameters of this rule deserve a closer look, and are far more fluid than we have been led to believe by the predominant media sources last week.
The rule contains a crucial waiver for the purposes of “imperative military necessity:” “(1) the cultural property in question has, by its function, been made into a military objective; and (2) there is no feasible alternative to obtain a similar military advantage to that offered by attacking that objective. The protocol also requires “an effective advance warning be given whenever circumstances permit.” The crucial definition of military objective is loose and can be found here.
The Convention goes on to describe the difference between two different prohibitions, but neither would necessarily protect the locally or nationally important landmarks that Trump could be referencing. These laws are put into place to protect universal relics such as the Eiffel Tower or the City of Mecca.
3. Trump Did Not Have Enough Evidence or Congressional Approval to Kill Soleimani
MSNBC/NBC news contributor Noah Rothman tweeted,
Part of the Iran deal involved lifting sanctions on Soleimani; directly after this action, Soleimani made his presence known in Syria by actively working against the US forces and partnering with President Bashar al Assad. It is clear that the general of the most elite military force of Iran was likely to threaten the United States—again.
There was a precedent for killing Osama bin Laden because of 9/11, and a precedent for killing Soleimani because of his “failed 2011 plot to bomb the Saudi Ambassador and dozens of people dining in a Washington, D.C., restaurant” as laid out in the Washington Examiner.
As the mainstream media bewails the swift action taken by the Trump administration, they continue their tradition of ignoring a crucial aspect of national security: the element of surprise. The American media is willing to buy a story at the price of safety. The assassination of Soleimani, a necessary action that called for swift decision-making, did not have the liberty of being wrung through the Congressional and media sieves—and it was not entirely necessary to do so.
Senator Tom Cotton writes in the New York Times: “The authority granted to the president under Article II of the Constitution provides ample legal basis for this strike. . . This will be a relief to the Obama administration, which ordered hundreds of drone strikes using such a legal rationale.” This will also be a relief to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who previously stated that Obama would not need Congressional approval to take action in Libya. His preferred action was to call the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi “a wild conspiracy theory,” but that’s another story.
We must face the reality that we have been taught to apologize for our nation and her actions on the global front. From President Obama’s 2016 “apology tour” to a former congressional candidate tweeting “The American flag makes me sick,” we are a nation of self-imposed shame, cutting ourselves off from a heritage of patriots and heroes and instead identifying with killers and despots. Many in the United States today are now unable to recognize that a president who is quick to action and resistant to international bullying is exactly what the country requires during these turbulent times.
Senator Cotton continues in the New York Times, “The future of our Iran policy is a critical part of our success in the global competition that will determine the character of this century and the safety of the American republic within it. And recent events have shown we are up to the task.” Trump’s unpredictability is what infuriates traditional politicians who are hard-wired into a NATO-era notion that we should constantly share every intention of ours to the world. House Representative Dan Crenshaw remarked in a news conference, “As the United States of America, we will not be punished indefinitely.” He encouraged listeners to stand behind their president rather than “casting partisan stones.”
More than ever, it is vital to not only stand behind a president who carried the nation through a delicate conflict with zero American casualties but behind that nation itself. The emasculation of the United States of America must come to an end. With strength comes peace.