Iran Killing: Justified, But Horribly Short-Sighted

Trump’s White House tenure has been filled with ceaseless divisiveness and tension, but no event has been as explosive as his recent killing of Iran’s top commander Qasem Soleimani.

Support for the bold move has largely conformed to party lines—no surprise. Republicans have defended the killing, arguing that Soleimani has been a force for terrorism, killed hundreds of Americans and was planning more attacks. Most Democrats acknowledged that Soleimani had committed atrocious crimes, but expressed serious concern about the potential consequences of the move and the escalation it could cause.

Before jumping to conclusions based on any one viewpoint, it’s important to consider all the facts.

Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had warned Iran in May that any attack against an American citizen would prompt retaliation. However, the U.S. did not take action after recent bombings of U.S. embassies, a strike against a U.S. drone or an Iranian attack on Saudi oil facilities. 

After an Iranian proxy fighter launched a rocket attack against a military base in Iraq that killed a U.S. military contractor and four U.S. service members, Trump orchestrated the killing of Soleimani. From this perspective, the rationale behind the killing seems justified: Iran crossed a line and deserved retaliation.

However, the process by which Trump carried out the attack was not only short-sighted, but arguably illegal.

Trump did not inform Congress of his plan, bypassing the normal process of alerting the Gang of Eight congress members. Trump and Pompeo claimed that the killing was an act of self-defense to deter an “imminent attack,” which would be constitutional. However, more recent reporting from the New York Times claims that the evidence for such an attack was “razor-thin.”

Trump’s typically outlandish behavior has allowed him to skirt most normal rules of the political game, but Congress should act to ensure that he does not start a war against the will of Congress or the American people. On Jan. 4, Trump threatened to target 52 Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliated, a move that would clearly violate international law and commit a serious war crime. 

What other organization has prioritized targeting cultural sites? ISIS. From Iran’s perspective, Trump threatened a similar type of terrorism. Several days later, Trump clarified that he “would like to follow the law,” and backed away from the threats.

Regardless of whether the killing was justified, the consequences of the attack are potentially catastrophic. Trump claimed that the move would deter future attacks, show America’s strength and keep Americans safe, but the killing may have done just the opposite.

On Jan. 7, Iran launched missiles into a U.S. base in Iraq. Fortunately, no one was killed, and Iran said it was taking “proportionate measures” for the strikes. This relatively-benign retaliation offers both sides a clear path to de-escalate the immediate conflict. 

But Trump has no grounds to claim that the world is a safer place now than a week ago. There are thousands of additional American troops in the Middle East. Americans spent much of 2019 arguing over how to pay for universal healthcare, but no one seems to be questioning how to pay for a long, ugly war. If the U.S. honors Iraq’s vote to remove all military presence from the country, terrorist groups like ISIS may sense an opening. Removing U.S. troops from Iraq was one of Soleimani’s top goals during his life, and his death may well accomplish his desired result. Additionally, Iran has resumed developing nuclear weapons, choosing to ignore the 2015 Nuclear Deal. 

Trump’s unpredictable antics also risk further alienating allies in the European Union and across the world. Rather than striving for global cooperation and reason, the U.S risks forcing peaceful allies to choose sides. 

And there is no guarantee that Iran’s retaliation is complete—cyberattacks or attacks by proxy forces in the Middle East loom as very real possibilities. 

Despite the many consequences, as of Jan. 8, Americans can take a breath. Extreme measures and all-out war seem unlikely. But the consequences of Trump’s killing will linger, potentially for years to come. 

Instead of making decisions based on values and long-term strategy, Trump seems to be trying to pad his ego and bolster his image as a strong leader before this year’s election. 

With the killing timed so impeccably with Trump’s impeachment trial, some have questioned whether Trump is trying to distract Americans from his ongoing trial. 

Assessing the past week’s whirlwind, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman wrote, “When I step back and get some distance on this latest clash between President Trump and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it becomes obvious to me that what we have here are two bald men fighting over a comb.

“We have two old men, with old ideas, fighting over a country that neither should want —Iraq—and over a 20th-century resource—oil—that is decreasingly relevant to a 21st-century nation’s economy and for a strategic goal—to dominate the Middle East—that no sane leader should want to achieve.” 

 If only we had a sane leader. 

Gavin Cosgrave is a senior management information systems major and the opinion editor.