While Trump’s careless action in ordering the murder of General Suleimani was not an impeachable offense, it is certainly yet one more example of why he is unfit for the office of President and why he is a danger to our country.
The issue here is why did Trump order this targeting killing? Why now? Suleimani has been an easy target to find and the military has offered his killing as an action option to Presidents on numerous occasions as far back as President George W. Bush. Most recently, they presented this as an option to Trump after the rocket attack near Kirkuk killed an American contractor.
No President has accepted that offer because the risks of killing someone that high in the Iranian hierarchy were great. There would likely be further loss of American and allied lives from retaliatory action, and, perhaps most importantly, it wouldn’t change the situation on the ground at all.
Secretary of State Pompeo called it a definitive action. It was anything but. When a high official is taken out, he is just replaced by someone else. It doesn’t slow or halt the battle, other than momentarily. On the other hand, it presents a situation which the Ayatollah must respond to with appropriate force and violence, otherwise he will be seen as weak and ineffective to his people and subordinates.
It’s was bound to also be counterproductive in several other important ways. Years of American sanctions have weakened the Iranian economy and that has driven a wedge between the people and the government. People are restless and have been protesting. With one action, Trump has united all Iranians behind the Ayatollah, much like all Americans were united after 9/11.
It was also bound to be counterproductive because by violating Iraqi sovereignty, he not only angered Shiite Iraqis but all Iraqis. And likely lead the Shiites to push to expel U.S. troops from Iraq. Which is exactly what has just happened in the Iraqi parliament. Our departure from Iraq would be both a major foreign policy failure and leave Iraqi Sunnis and Kurds feeling unprotected from the Shiite majority.
So why did Trump order his killing? Because he sat stewing as he watched scenes of Iraqis assaulting the U.S. Embassy compound after the U.S. counter-attack on Iranian-backed militias. And I’m sure he heard how Iran thought he was weak since he had previously backed down from using force against Iran (apparently because Tucker Carlson told him it would upset his base since he had promised to uninvolve the U.S. in the mideast).
So out of personal pique, not careful policy analysis, Trump ordered the strike. Not an unusual action for him.
There is another issue here. Is the targeted killing of a high official, such as General Suleimani, a political assassination or an acceptable combat decision? Political assassination of foreign officials is prohibited by Executive Order. In response to Senator Sanders’ characterizing it as an assassination, Mike Bloomberg said that was ridiculous.
Obviously killing the Ayatollah would be a political assassination. So where and how do you draw the line? I would say given Suleimani’s actions over many years, and his status in the hierarchy, this was not a combat decision but a political assassination. Indeed, John Bolton praised the attack as the first step in bringing about regime change in Iran.
Congress should act quickly and decisively to prevent Trump from leading us into a war with Iraq.
