Reagan would have been proud of Trump’s Iran strike

WASHINGTON >> President Trump’s critics are calling his military strike against Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani reckless and provocative, but there’s one man who would have been enormously proud of his decision: Ronald Reagan. Because in taking out Soleimani, Trump took a page out of the Reagan playbook.

In Reagan’s time, the premier state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East was Moammar Gadhafi’s Libya. Much like Trump has with Iran, Reagan imposed crippling sanctions on Gadhafi’s terrorist regime. And after Libyan-backed terrorists killed five Americans in Rome and Vienna, Reagan drew a red line, warning Gadhafi that the United States would hold him fully accountable for any further attacks on U.S. citizens.

In 1986, on Gadhafi’s orders, terrorists exploded a bomb at a West Berlin nightclub that was frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing Sgt. Kenneth Ford and injuring some 50 U.S. military personnel. In response, Reagan sent U.S. jets and bombers to attack Libya’s terrorist infrastructure — including a strike on Gadhafi’s compound. The Libyan leader just barely escaped.

Reagan declared that Gadhafi had “counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong.” The United States, Reagan said, would not “ignore, by inaction, the slaughter of American civilians and American soldiers,” adding, “When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, on the direct orders of a hostile regime, we will respond, so long as I’m in this Oval Office. … If necessary, we shall do it again.”

Like Reagan, Trump drew a red line, warning Iran that if it killed an American, it would be held accountable. Like Reagan, Trump enforced that red line. Like Reagan, Trump launched a decapitation strike against the terrorist leader responsible for the death of an American. And like Reagan, Trump warned Iran that if necessary, his administration would not hesitate to act again.

Unlike Reagan, Trump succeeded in taking out his target — killing Soleimani and Abu Mahdi alMuhandis, the leader of the Iranbacked Kataib Hezbollah militia.

But the biggest difference between then and now is the reaction on Capitol Hill. Back then, Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill openly supported Reagan’s decision, declaring, “All this started because of the evil heart of a bad man. Every time he escalates, we have to strike.” By contrast, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., blasted Trump, as have most congressional Democrats and presidential candidates. It’s pathetic that many Democrats can’t say “good riddance” to a terrorist with the blood of hundreds of Americans on his hands simply because Trump ordered his killing.

In announcing his strikes on Libya, Reagan said, “I have no illusion that tonight’s action will bring down the curtain on Gadhafi’s reign of terror.” Indeed, it didn’t. Two years later, Libyan terrorists brought down Pan Am Flight 103. We should be under no illusion that Soleimani’s killing will end Iran’s reign of terror.

But the strike was necessary, because our deterrence posture with Iran was failing. Iran had been carrying out increasingly bold attacks — attacking Japanese and Norwegian oil tankers, then an unmanned U.S. drone and then Saudi oil facilities. As retired Gen. David Petraeus recently explained, Trump’s strike helped “reestablish deterrence.”

Now, Trump must maintain that deterrence. Reagan did the right thing, but he didn’t maintain the pressure in ways that further deterred Libya, which made Gadhafi think he could get away with the Pan Am bombing. The lesson is that one act, however bold, isn’t enough to deter a terrorist state.

Iran will continue testing our resolve. It must not find reason to question it again.