Our president is not a religious man. But it’s suitable to quote a verse from what his Christian allies call “the Scriptures:”
For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind…
I will send a fire upon his cities,
And it will devour their castles.–Hosea
Pres. Trump has made the single most catastrophic decision in a presidency full of catastrophes. His approval of the assassination of the most prominent military leader in Iran will have disastrous consequences not just for America, but for all our allies, especially Israel. Every American anywhere, but especially outside the U.S., will become a target. Within hours, if not days our embassies will be burning. Iraq will become ungovernable. Our service members there will be in the cross-hairs.
Not only will Iran fling down the entire JCPOA agreement in disgust, it will begin not just testing ballistic missiles, but perhaps even lobbing a few a Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Its Hezbollah allies will assume a much more belligerent posture in Syria and Lebanon.
This single act has further displayed Trump’s contempt for our European “allies,” who sought a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iran. In a single act, he has flung decades worth of diplomacy and engagement into the trash heap.
Whether Trump realized it or not, this means war. Even if he didn’t officially declare war, he has just done so by this unmitigated disaster of a decision. The War Powers Act demands that a president consult Congress before commencing hostilities on a foreign power. Trump not only didn’t consult Congress, he didn’t even consult his own Party. No President in the history of this country would ever have done anything so reckless and abandoned the traditional ‘niceties’ of consultation with the legislative branch.
Sen. Blumenthal alluded to this when he said:
“The present authorizations for use of military force in no way cover starting a possible new war. This step could bring the most consequential military confrontation in decades,”
Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question.
The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) January 3, 2020
Bernie Sanders was typically clear and resolute:
“Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one,”
In an otherwise mealy-mouthed statement, Joe Biden said:
“President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox.”
I predict that when Iranian blowback strikes us hard, that Americans will pay closer attention to the War Powers Act and note Trump violated it egregiously. In normal circumstances, presidents aren’t called on the carpet for taking the country to war, as long as we win. If we lose or are perceived as losing, the citizenry rapidly sours and looks to where it can cast blame. It could further weaken Trump and even possibly bring a new article of impeachment.
For a comparable event in history, imagine that Hitler had assassinated both Field Marshall Montgomery and Eisenhower during WWII; or that the British had captured and hung George Washington during the Revolutionary War; imagine that the British had arrested, tried and executed Ben Gurion in the pre-State era. In other words, this is not just your average assassination. This is a murder that will resonate for years, if not decades. It will further poison U.S.-Iran relations for a generation. It will set off a nuclear arms race such as you could not previously imagine.
The blows we will suffer will sorely tempt our leaders to not only attack Iran, but invade it to overthrow the regime. We have gotten closer than at any time since 1979 to all-out war against Iran. If you don’t believe me, then read this from Leon Panetta, who says the same. This is not a genie you can put back in the bottle. This one is truly evil and will wreck thousands of lives for decades.
The Pentagon released an absolutely awful statement claiming this was a “decisive defensive action,” because Soleimani had supposedly planned the attack on the Bagdhad embassy and was planning other similar terror operations against our forces. Secretary of Defense Esper said the attack was meant to deter Iran. I can’t think of a more idiotic claim to make. It will, of course, do just the opposite. If we thought we were locked in a hostile relationship before this; the next phase will be closer to a boa constrictor’s fatal embrace.
Esper further says: “the game has changed.” First, this is NOT a game. Not to Iran. And we will find out how much it sees it as anything but a game in days to come.
Trump thinks like Bibi. Whenever the Israeli PM faces a crisis or an election, he starts a war and knocks the s**t out of the poor suckers in Gaza. A month and a few thousand innocent Palestinian lives later, he withdraws and pounds his chest like a silver-back Gorilla, telling Israel how he protected it from the Palestinian onslaught.
Trump is now facing the nadir of his presidency. He is mired in an impeachment; and Democrats are in no mood to let him off the hook by transferring the articles to the Senate so it can dispose of them in 12 minutes on the floor. Trump thought this would be like Obama assassinating Osama bin Laden or like the murder of ISIS leader, al-Baghdadi. Americans would hold rallies and cheer as they did after Bin Laden was eliminated. But he has failed to take into account that Iran will be a far more formidable enemy than he gives it credit. It will make him pay in blood. When the bodies come home in flag-draped coffins, I hope one family has the guts to ship theirs to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to lie in state, as it were. Let hundreds of thousands come to pay their respects to a life wasted on the altar of a president’s vanity.
And if Trump thinks Soleimani’s murder will not cost us, just as al-Baghdadi’s and Bin Laden’s didn’t, there are several differences: Soleimani was no leader of a ragtag bag of Islamist fanatics and terrorist-wannabes. He was the second-most powerful person in Iran. He founded the IRG, perhaps the most capable ground army in the region. He was beloved by the Grand Ayatollah, who treated him as a son. He was the hero of the nation. He represented its pride, its steadfastness, its vigilance. Half of Iran would step forward and offer their lives to avenge him.
To anyone praising the killing by calling Soleimani a butcher with hands dropping in blood, it quite depends on your perspective, doesn’t it? God’s always on our side. The devil is on the other guy’s. If we were at war and Soleimani was our military leader, we’d laud him as a national hero, just as Iranians do. But when he kills our soldiers he’s the devil incarnate. No one bothers to ask why our soldiers are there in the first place, and what they did before his attempts to kill them.
You remember way back to last month, when the Iranian regime was reeling from riots which spread like wildfire throughout the country? The Ayatollah was on his knees. The Islamic Republic teetered on the brink. If our policy was to weaken the regime and provoke change through internal crisis, this was a perfect development. Now, what have we done? We’ve swept away all the divisions that existed last month. We’ve united the country as it has not been united since 1979.
Trump has also singlehandedly destroyed the political prospects for Iran’s reformist forces. The hardliners will swamp them in the next election. Iran is headed fur even more suffocating, dictatorial clerical governance than It ever had.
They will bring Soleimani’s remains from Iraq and emtomb them in a mausoleum next door to Ayatollah Khomeini himself. The ring he wore which permitted rescuers to identify his remains amidst the wreckage will be on display there. Schoolchildren will visit in the tens of thousands. His writings will be studied with reverence. We’ve just created a martyr of enormous magnitude.
Has the murder damaged Iran? No, these killings never do what the killers think they will. They do not weaken, they do not divide. The contrary: Israel killed Hezbollah leader Abbas al-Musawi and it brought a far more dangerous enemy in Hassan Nasrallah. Israel killed Hamas leader, Sheik Ahmed al-Yassine and he was replaced by Khaled Mashal. The U.S. killed Bin Laden and it did not degrade al Qaeda in the slightest.
There are hundreds of IRG commanders eager to replace the martyred Soleimani. The one who is chosen will undoubtedly be even more cunning and capable than his predecessor. This killing is yet another in a long line of U.S. disastrous counter-terror moves which do nothing to advance our real interests, to make the region more stable, to resolve long-festering disputes.
I plan to visit this article in a few weeks to see if you were on the money or way off. Time will tell, but I admire your bold predictions, even if I think you’re wrong. Respectfully,
Indeed this assassination was extremely stupid but is it something new in US “foreign” policy? Demanding that Trump should have been given by Congress and opposition the permission to this assassination is a bit “strange” demand. USA tried and planed to murder Castro over 600 times by all US regimes during the past century’s last decades. From Wikipedia
Did US political and parliamentary system officially approve all this “Castro” attempts or the numerous other successful assassinations around the world?
Lets hope that when USA is kicked out of Iraq and Afghanistan by their own governments is enough “punishment” for this act. Anyway the oil prices have risen fast so a major war is a real possibility and now civil planes seem increasingly to avoid now Iraqi, Jordanian and Syrian airspace (Flightradar app). Airtrafic controllers are the first to “see” where the conflicts appear.
“Trump thinks like Bibi. Whenever the Israeli PM faces a crisis or an election, he starts a war..”
You can say the same thing about Iran, who facing an internal crisis where the regime had to slaughter 1,500 Iranian civilian protestors, sought a crisis over in Iraq as a diversion, and ordered missiles fired at an American base in Northern Iraq.
“Sowing the Wind, Reaping the Whirlwind”.
You can say the same thing about Iran, who ordered her proxies in Iraq to kill and maim hundreds of American troops, and attempt an assassination of a Saudi diplomat in Washington, D.C., not to mention just now attacking the American Embassy in Baghdad.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/04/04/iran-killed-more-us-troops-in-iraq-than-previously-known-pentagon-says/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/man-in-iran-backed-plot-to-kill-saudi-ambassador-gets-25-years/2013/05/30/0435e7a2-c952-11e2-8da7-d274bc611a47_story.html
@ Ben:
Nonsense, Iran has been a dominant force in Iran for years, if not decades. It created the crisis in Iraq because it is playing a game of the chicken with the U.S. Your attempts to divert attention to nonsensical scenarios is ridiculous.
Who supported the Shah? Who trained SAVAK in torture techniques used to abuse those seeking freedom? Who overthrew Mousedegh in 1953? We did. So don’t talk to me about Iranian provocations. We’ve done more to provoke Iran than you can ever imagine.
Do not comment in this thread again.
Well, if we can all make our predictions here, so will I.
The assassination will not trigger a regional war.
Iran is a highly rational actor and has its eye on the strategic ball.
Which is to maintain its influence in the area via proxies, and survive as a regime.
Thus it will continue doing what it has done until now– acts of guerrilla asymmetrical warfare,
It has no interest (or ability) in taking on the US in frontal conflict.
So Iran will do what it does best– terrorist attacks against American/Jewish/Israeli/Western soft spots, and pinpoint attacks against these interests. It knows well how far it can go in these attacks.
Iran will surely respond, but it also has no interest in an all-out war, so I would bet on a more measured response (that will not include firing rockets onto Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem, for instance).
Whether this was a wise and beneficial move or a foolish and disastrous one is debatable at this point, and only time will tell. But there’s nothing morally wrong about it. This guy was a mass-murderer involved in every murderous campaign in Iran and the Arab world; he was just recently responsible for attacks against the US; and according to US officials, he was planning imminent additional attacks (they could be lying of course, but the claim itself is entirely believable).
@ Eli:
Nope, not debatable at all. Not even close.
Of course there is. IF there’s nothing morally wrong with it then you’ll have no objection to Iran assassinating Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot. If you’re fine with that, then I’m fine with offing Soleimani.
Your PM is a mass murderer. Most U.S. presidents of the past two decades have been mass murderers. Were they assassinated for their crimes?
@SimoHurtta: all US presidents have claimed the authority to order assassinations with Congressional approval, and trying to kill Castro is one example of that, so your larger point stands. But the numbers are ludicrous. The Nixon administration tried or “schemed” to kill Castro 184 times, i.e. a new “scheme” or attempt every 11 days? Yeah, Mr. Escalante’s estimates do not seem particularly credible.
@ Eli: Who cares? It’s well known that the U.S. repeatedly tried to assassinate Castro. That’s the salient point.
From somewhere in the Twitterverse:
If you voted for Trump, strap up your boot laces, grab the gun you love so much, kiss the heterosexual spouse you pretend to enjoy, wave goodbye to the white kids you believe are an endangered species and get your ass on the front lines.
Love,
All the snowflakes
You credit Iran with suicidal impulses she almost certainly doesn’t have.
We’re pretty terrifying. Pretty definitely in the wrong, but also pretty terrifying.
But while we may not have to worry about what Iraq will do, there may be a God.
And if so, we have sinned, and we may be in trouble. This is not just about the balance of power; it’s also about good and evil.
It’s wrong to start an unjust war. Surely that’s obvious.
Sounds like you are saying that the strongest kid in class should submit to a weaker bully who is harassing many of the kids b/c he will get a tantrum.
For some reason you accept Iran’s hostilities and the many people who died b/c of Soleimani. There is no way for you to tell if his death will reduce this number or not and it is not a small number.
But at least you haven’t made the argument it was immoral to eliminate him.
@ Ariel Shaked: “the strongest kid in the class should submit to the Bully”
I suggest you recall the wisdom of Pirkey Avot: “Who is strong? He who controls his own impulses.” In other words, only a weak person lashes out at his/her enemies without thought to the repurcussions of his actions.
“you haven’t made the argument it was immoral to eliminate him”
Actually, I’ve made the argument it was the height of hypocrisy to do so, unless we’re prepared to execute every national leader who’s ever engaged in mass murder.
[comment deleted, commenter banned: my comment rules, which you clearly did not read despite being warned to do so before publishing your first comment, make clear that using more than one comment handle is forbidden. Not only have you invented two comment handles, you’ve used Arab names as the handles and you clearly aren’t Arab or Muslim. You’re a fake and a fraud. Hence banned.]
you deploy the bigotry of low expectations Richard. You expect more from your own than you do of Muslims.
That is why I hate liberals. You would be surprised if you knew just how effectively I fight you liberals. You ally with Islamists .
Yeah, you’re so “effective” (and fake) that you invented two separate comment handles, both of which are fake Arab names you’ve assumed. And that’s why you’re now banned.
@Richard: other than the Tu quoque charge, you haven’t pointed to a reason why killing this guy was inherently wrong from a moral standpoint. (BTW, Gadi Eisenkot has been a civilian for about a year now.)
As for my comment to SimoHurtta, I myself recognized that his larger point stands, but there’s no need to add nonsense claims to it. Facts matter.
@ Eli: Assuming the international laws of war which prohibit such assassinations ate considered a “moral standpoint,” that’s one awfully big problem for you. Not to mention that the killing of this one man will lead directly to the deaths of thousands of others. Despite the fact that this doesn’t technically count as a moral reason, it does conserve lives and that is a moral standpoint. Not to mention that a good number of those lost lives will be Israeli. I presume saving Israeli lives counts for you as a moral standpoint?
“Other than??” Really? The utter hypocrisy of Trump and Netanyahu ranting against Iran is an unassailable, compelling moral argument. I don’t need any others, but there are more anyway.
They do indeed. And you don’t have any.
You should consider another Jewish idiom “He Who is Compassionate to the Cruel Will Ultimately Become Cruel to the Compassionate”.
@ Ariel Shaked:
I don’t believe that cruelty is ever a successful strategy. But that doesn’t stop Israel and Trump from making it their go-to approach in pursuing their interests. And I certainly refuse to acknowledge the cruelty of assassinating the leading military figure in the Middle East will in the end prove compassionate to anyone regardless of how you define those terms.
“I don’t believe that cruelty is ever a successful strategy”, well this is why you should pay attention to what our wise elders had to say.
You write about the lives that might get lost b/c of his death but you neglect to write about the thousands of lives lost while he was alive and the future lives he would have destroyed.
‘Caring’ about Israeli lives when the man had direct responsibility for the thousands of rockets aimed at israel from both Gaza and Lebanon is hypocritical. Do you really think people don’t see right through it?