Why killing Qassem Soleimani was short-sighted
The main terrorist threat doesn’t come from Iran,
Do you remember when U.S. Special Forces killed al- Qaida leader Osama bin Laden? Do you remember the scenes of elation in America over the death of the 9/11 mastermind? I do; I was working at CSIS at the time as a terrorism analyst.
Back then, some voices argued that the military operation was illegal and that if the U.S. wanted to stop bin Laden from planning more attacks, it should have brought him to trial. I am no legal expert; the killing may indeed have violated international law, but I supported the move then and still do since al-Qaida was planning more acts of terrorism under bin Laden, and arresting him was next to impossible. At the time, he posed a “clear and present danger.”
Last week’s assassination of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Gen. Qassem Soleimani does not fall into the same category and hence cannot be justified for the same reasons. The decision to take him out also points to a fundamental U.S. lack of understanding of the current terrorism threat and will lead to more, not fewer, deaths.
Before I continue, allow me to offer the following as qualification. I worked as both a Farsi linguist and strategic analyst on Iran at both CSE and CSIS for more than 20 years. And while my career shifted toward examining Sunni Islamist terrorism after 9/11 and my knowledge of current Iranian affairs is not as strong as it once was, I nevertheless have a solid grasp on today’s terrorist threat.
To put it simply, that threat is not coming primarily from Iran.
I fully acknowledge that Iran is not our friend (it has not been since 1979), and that it backs terrorist groups such as Hezbollah ( both the Quds force of the IRGC and Hezbollah are listed terrorist entities in the United States and Canada).
Hence, it has enabled acts of terrorism over the years, although a number of attacks targeted military forces, a fact that has led some to question whether they were terrorist in nature at all. Interestingly, Hezbollah has stated that retribution for Soleimani’s death must target the U.S. military and not civilians.
But neither Iran nor the IRGC is the greatest of our problems. Sunni jihadis are and always have been behind the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the world, including 9/11 (even if some U.S. officials continue to raise the non-existent Iranian angle).
Groups such as al-Qaida, Islamic State (ISIL), Al Shabaab in Somalia and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and hundreds of others around the globe, need to be monitored and neutralized. Iran and its proxies are the “B” team, not worthy of the lion’s share of our attention or assassination plots.
By taking out Soleimani, the U.S. has demonstrated that it still does not get this.
A similar brain cramp post-9/11 led to the unforgivable decision to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the attacks in New York and Washington (again despite the conviction of some U.S. leaders), leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the creation of ISIL.
Bin Laden was probably chortling with glee when the George W. Bush administration refocused from him to Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. I imagine ISIL is feeling the same way today (there are already reports that the U.S.led forces in Iraq and Syria have stopped looking for ISIL and will now focus on protecting themselves).
Plus ça change. Instead of eliminating a major threat, the U.S. has emboldened the real menace and given a lesser one cause to escalate. And this is smart foreign policy?
I believe there is more to this act than a justifiable questioning of President Donald Trump’s competence. The U.S. has had Iran on the brain since 1979 and cannot let the hostage crisis of that period go. Iran is not a nice player but there have been occasions, particularly under former president Mohammad Khatami, in which partial rapprochement was possible. These have been rejected: recall Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech. How has that worked out?
It is also incredible that the current U.S. commander-in-chief cites intelligence as part of the reason he ordered Soleimani’s death, given that he has ridiculed American intelligence for its findings on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
It appears that intel is only good when it suits Trump’s preordained decisions.
Was there credible information pointing to an imminent attack ordered by the IRGC leader? From what I have read from “insiders,” that does not appear to have been the case.
In the end, I am not predicting World War III even as it trends online. I believe we will see an escalation of Iranian meddling in the region and that U.S. forces are at risk. I also predict that ISIL and others will take advantage of this strategic error to regroup and carry out more “real” terrorist attacks.
The death of Qassem Soleimani does not make anyone safer. It was the wrong move at the wrong time.