‘Imminent’ Distractions
Once again handing its critics needless fodder, Team Trump is struggling to explain the intelligence that prompted its excellent decision to take out Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s terrorist-in-chief.
The drone strike was a well-justified winner: With the blood of thousands on his hands, including hundreds of US soldiers, the general was plainly a legitimate target.
Over more than a decade, top US officials have privately called for taking him out. But it was only last year that President Trump signed on to the idea, while still requiring his own OK to actually do the job.
By that point, Pentagon lawyers certainly ensured that any kill order would be legal. But the administration’s now caught up in a pointless debate about how it knew Soleimani was an “imminent” threat.
Never mind that President Barack Obama ordered hundreds of drone strikes targeting specific individuals in a half-dozen countries without prompting anything like the current furor.
Maybe the hysterical claims that offing
Soleimani could trigger World War III put Trump officials off-balance, prompting first Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then others to cite “imminent threats.” And never mind that he soon clarified, “It’s never one thing,” but rather “a full situational awareness of risk and analysis.”
Then the president told Fox News he thought Soleimani would target four US embassies. That may well summarize what analysts flagged as the general’s likely intent, but Defense Secretary Mark Esper won’t confirm they had such specific intelligence.
CIA chief Gina Haspell and Joint Chiefs of Staff head Gen. Mark Milley, both career officials, are convinced Soleimani was planning a major attack — yet no one’s giving Congress the intel that persuaded them.
The president was right Monday in saying the “imminent” question “doesn’t really matter” — except that his own people raised the issue in the first place.
Team Trump made the right call here, but it needs its communications team clicking on as many cylinders as its decision-makers.