Iran’s top military commander Major General Qassem Soleimani along with Iraq’s militia chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed Friday at Baghdad’s international airport by a US drone strike on the orders of US President Donald Trump. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has pledged a “forceful revenge”. This attack marks another blow to relations between US and Iran, with whom India shares old ties.
ThePrint asks: US kills Iran’s Soleimani: Is it a wise act or Trump’s foolhardiness in an election year?
Unlike terrorist Osama bin Laden’s killing, assassination of Iran’s Soleimani by US forces is an act of war
Executive council member, VIF, and former foreign secretary
The assassination of Iranian general Soleimani by the US military at Baghdad’s international airport violates international law because self-defence or pre-emption cannot be offered as justifications. Unlike the killing of terrorist Osama bin Laden accused of plotting attacks against the US, the assassination a serving general of another country without any direct linkage to attacks against the US is an act of war.
The situation in the Middle East is already precarious because of rivalry among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, US, Russia and Israel. Trump’s decision to repudiate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was a grave mistake because it promised to escalate tensions further. Soleimani’s killing is only a logical outcome.
Iran has an equal right to protect its regional strategic interests as any other country. Conflicting strategic interests do not give the stronger power (the US) to sanction assassinations. This killing may be welcomed domestically in the US and in certain regions of the Arab world, but internationally, it will only strengthen concerns about US’ unilateralism.
It is ironic that the US lectures India on our handling of purely domestic issues such as Article 370 and the Citizenship Amendment Act but itself acts irresponsibly by dangerously aggravating tensions in an already volatile region with serious consequences.
US motivation difficult to understand. Election, Trump’s impeachment proceedings factors to consider
Former Indian diplomat
The killing of Iran’s military commander Major General Soleimani marks the culmination of a sustained confrontation between Iranian and US interests in Iraq. The theatre of competition for influence between these two countries since 2003 has been Iraq. This competition has acquired a sharper edge ever since Donald Trump began his hostile anti-Iran approach by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement and reinstating sanctions.
There have been tit-for-tat confrontations between Iran and the US in 2019. It began with the tanker warfare in June, then the bringing down of the US drone the same month, the arrest of the Iranian oil tanker in the Mediterranean and finally the attacks on Saudi oil facilities in September. There have also been continuous attacks in Iraq on US bases.
The American motivation is difficult to understand. Trump doesn’t wish to involve his country in any major regional conflict but is also simultaneously extremely emotional about the lives of Americans. From the point of view of US policies, three things must be understood. First, Trump is facing impeachment. Second, the presidential election is due this year. Third, Trump is anxious to show that he is a tough guy. He has contrasted himself from Obama and Hillary Clinton.
There is a genuine fear now that after Soleimani’s assassination, tensions between the US and Iran could further escalate. However, the two countries should focus on consolations and dialogues. The US and Saudi Arabia should now allow Iraq the freedom to manage its own politics.
With repeated provocations, Iran had been testing patience of US. Targeting Soleimani was unavoidable
Professor of International Politics, JNU
More than being a wise act or foolhardiness, the Donald Trump administration in the US targeting Iran’s Gen. Soleimani was probably unavoidable. Iran had been testing the limits of US patience quite recklessly. In addition to shooting down a US military drone over the Strait of Hormuz in June 2019, Iran had also launched an audacious attack in September 2019 on US’ closest ally in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia.
More recently, Iranian proxy forces had repeatedly targeted the US forces in Iraq, forcing US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to threaten a “decisive US response” last month. But Iran appears to have concluded that Trump was only a Twitter tiger because he had called off attacks against Iran for previous provocations. But the attack last week, which killed an American contractor working for the US military, appears to have crossed boundaries for Trump, requiring a direct response.
The Americans had a long-standing score to settle with Soleimani because he was responsible for the death of hundreds of US soldiers over the years. Iran will probably retaliate, but with Trump, it can no longer be confident that the US will be quiescent. Reasserting US military and deterrence credibility is not a bad thing, and its effects will be felt beyond the Middle East as long as Trump stays the course.
US has long history of cracking down on enemies. But Soleimani was no mere insurgent, Iran can retaliate
Policy analyst, The Takshashila Institution
Soleimani’s killing is a risky act not only for its escalatory potential, but also because he was many things: an ally of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a military leader and an insurgent.
The United States has a long history of cracking down on enemy leaders, dating back to the 19th century, most recently targeting ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
But do such decapitation strikes work? In the case of insurgents, the evidence is mixed. Killing leaders can create martyrs and spur recruitment in the short-term, but there’s also reason to believe that it can help in a broader counterinsurgency campaign. The trouble is Soleimani was no mere insurgent. The US has targeted state leaders before — capturing Panama’s Manuel Noriega in 1989 and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003. However, both those men were captured only after the US forces had invaded and taken control of their countries.
With Soleimani’s killing, Iran is in uncharted territory. The Quds Force, which Soleimani headed, may miss his leadership, but it will be motivated by vengeance and be backed by the Iranian state.
Iran could mount deniable attacks on US allies or its soldiers and diplomats using armed proxies or covert operatives. It could also use drones or cyberattacks to disrupt US’ oil facilities in the Middle East.
For India, it’s all bad news. Its relations with Iran will be further constrained, a spike in oil prices would harm its already weak economy. A US confrontation with Iran will distract Trump from the most important strategic challenge: China.
How bad it gets depends on both Iran’s reaction and what endgame Donald Trump has in mind ahead of the US presidential election.
Also read: Iran’s Qassem Soleimani was on Bush and Obama’s kill list too but Trump went for the attack
By Kairvy Grewal, journalist at ThePrint