I read Dexter Filkins’s opus on Qassem Suleimani when it was published in The New Yorker in September 2013. I believe that was the point when I first understood the breadth of his accomplishment. I had known of Suleimani prior to that, and I was aware that he was extraordinarily dangerous and powerful. It was only after reading Filkins that I realized that Suleimani probably had more responsibility for Iran’s geo-strategic reach than Iran’s Supreme Leader or any other strategist in their government.
It was also probably that article that informed me of the reverence with which Suleimani was held by his followers, as well as ordinary Iranians, and even the spies and military leaders responsible for facing him down and limiting his effectiveness.
He was kind of the man who must be killed but was too powerful and charismatic to kill. Characterized as “a living martyr” by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Suleimani would become a religious figure if actually martyred. His network of supporters had metastasized across the region and even the globe, and they were trained in asymmetrical warfare. Everyone was terrified of him in the Middle East, including the Israelis.
Suleimani’s fate appears to have been sealed when Iran-backed militias broke into the American Embassy in Baghdad, lit fires and scrawled pro-Suleimani and anti-American graffiti on the walls. It was an inopportune time for the Iranian general and spymaster to visit the Baghdad Airport, and he paid for his miscalculation with his life.
If America wanted to send the strongest possible message that we won’t tolerate another Iranian Hostage Crisis, the assassination of Suleimani certainly accomplished that. In this limited sense, I’m sympathetic to the thinking behind this extreme action. But this is the furthest thing from a one-off warning. It’s a step designed to cause an escalation that will lead to war. If you have any doubt about this, look at what the most longstanding American advocate of regime change in Teheran had to say about it:
Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.
— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) January 3, 2020
We tend to exaggerate the importance of terrorist leaders, falsely suggesting that they are irreplaceable. In this case, Suleimani’s singular genius was such that it’s probably true. This won’t make the world a safer place in the short term, however. If anything, Suleimani’s Quds Force is more dangerous without his savvy and often restrained leadership. They are just as lethal as they were with Suleimani alive, but more likely to be used in reckless ways that will escalate things to an inevitable final showdown with the Iranian regime.
Iran will feel duty-bound to exact revenge, and a commensurate level of revenge would involve assassinating a major American leader, such as a commanding general or member of Trump’s cabinet. If they feel that this would be suicidal, they will opt for lesser targets with more plausible deniability.
In the short term, they will try to force the Iraqi government to ask for the removal of all American troops. They will surely contemplate actions in the region against allies and soft targets that prudence prevented them from considering in the past. Simple national pride will lead them to take risks that were previously unimaginable.
Suleimani’s reach probably extends to the American homeland, too, so we shouldn’t rule out that reprisals will be felt here, although that would make it very easy for people like John Bolton to rally the nation to a war that might not otherwise have broad public support. The problem is, hardliners in Iran might not care.
For the same reason, Americans abroad should not feel safe and air travel will remain risky into the indefinite future.
This is a tremendous amount of risk and a ridiculously momentous decision to take without first consulting leaders in Congress or our close allies. It’s not like Suleimani was some illusive target that might disappear for another decade if not killed when the opportunity arose. He traveled openly in the region, usually unarmed.
Things will almost definitely escalate out of control now, but the international community should still step in to do what they can to restrain the Iranians and to convince America to avoid more provocative actions. Potentially millions of lives are at stake, as well as the health of the global economy.
With this decision, Trump has removed the solitary argument in his favor, which was that he was reticent to wage more war in the Middle East and Central Asia. He just created an almost unimaginable amount of danger for Americans and our allies, and that’s precisely what a lot of his supporters did not want.
Now we’re forced to mitigate these dangers in the midst of an impeachment trial that would remove our leader from office as unfit. Perhaps that played into this decision as well.
5
4.5
The democratically illegitimate demagogue President Chaos has now unilaterally declared war on Iran in order to make himself appear as the (irremovable) Commanderer in Chief “in time of war”. Iran will now consider itself at war with the US, and the only question will be–as you observe—where the next strike will occur. The long-desired “conservative” war with Iran is now a reality–Trump’s War. This is really not that much different than Hitler’s determination to finally commence WWII by invading Poland—also without any real “consent” by the governed, only the military.
The first big question will be the level of Democratic support for the demagogue’s decision to thrust the nation into a major war without the consent of Congress, let alone the slightest consultation with it. If we were a serious nation, the House would vote a new article of impeachment out this morning, as this reckless executive/Pentagon action is yet another anti-democratic abuse of office. The nation cannot fight a war with a prez whom majorities of citizens already think is utterly unfit for office and meriting removal for previous abuses. But his reckless decision for war is just a harbinger of greater Trumpian chaos and insanity to come.
Presumably the Imperial soldiery in the Middle East will be the first targets of Trump’s War and that will bring on US air strikes in Iran proper–which the generals will happily implement without the slightest consent of Congress. Trump’s War should be the match that ignites the next global economic meltdown, at least it certainly will not be a surprise if this happens. Suffice to say if stocks don’t fall significantly on this news of war, then the markets are truly irrational. Iran’s first public statement will be very, um, “interesting”…
And let us also not forget that it was the reckless assassination of a national leader that brought on WWI, whose sleepwalking leaders all look like Otto von Bismarcks compared to our juvenile imbecile and his hapless coterie of sycophantic third stringers.
5
“With this decision, Trump has removed the solitary argument in his favor, which was that he was reticent to wage more war in the Middle East and Central Asia. He just created an almost unimaginable amount of danger for Americans and our allies, and that’s precisely what a lot of his supporters did not want.”
I believe this is inaccurate thinking about his supporters. Beyond the Trump-curious voters who have likely peeled off by now (ie, the folks who hated Clinton but voted Obama, etc), his hardcore base has no beliefs other than what Trump tells them. You see it every day, total doublethink.
“Now we’re forced to mitigate these dangers in the midst of an impeachment trial that would remove our leader from office as unfit. Perhaps that played into this decision as well.”
You are a master of understatement.
There was a reason that there was so much overlap between Trump and Sanders supporters. The Middle East explained a lot of it.
Maybe you can explain that overlap to the rest of us and why it provides an explanation.
Very True just read all the right wing blogs Redstate, townhall, freerepublic ect. They are all cheering…
So does this mean it is open season on despots?
5
Iran knows they cannot win a war with us. So that will work to moderate their response. Further escalation may really be up to Trump and his reticence about another Mid East war may lead him to hold off. But there are no quarantines. If the Iranians kill a highly placed official, Trump may go for broke. I doubt the Iranians will but who can say for sure?
I disagree. They most certainly can win a war with us. All they have to do is to make the cost high enough that the public demands that we withdraw from the middle east. They can beat us just like Vietnam did.
On the flip side, I do not think we can win a war with Iran. Certainly, we do *not* have the military forces to march to Tehran in the same way that we marched to Baghdad. Maybe we can force a regime change…maybe…but this seems less likely to happen in the context of an all out war, which would induce the Iranian population to rally around the regime.
Even beyond this asymmetry of objectives, which gives them the advantage in how one reaches “victory”, we should not assume that we have the advantage in military assets. Certainly we can fly airstrikes against them and they cannot do the same to us. But we have no idea how vulnerable we might be to other kinds of attacks, most notably terror attacks or cyber attacks. Think about how successful Russia has been in the low-grade war we have been fighting for the past 10 years. Our military is much better than theirs. But they mastered the cyber-political attacks that struck a dagger right into the heart of our society.
I don’t believe either Trump or the American people have the will for a ground war. But regime change and flyover with bombs could do great damage. I doubt the Iranians want to risk losing their power and government. I’m not even sure how they will resupply quickly enough. We learned our lesson in Vietnam that without our people and support of,the people in the country the ground game is quickly lost. Trump has already said he doesn’t want a war. He knows the risks. And so do the Iranians.
I don’t think Vietnam beat us so much as we beat ourselves and the Vietnamese had no interest in the fight.
“With this decision, Trump has removed the solitary argument in his favor, which was that he was reticent to wage more war
…” I see this as a key point. Hard to believe he’s gone there. Why?
Operations like this don’t just happen – and someone has been stalking bad guys in this theater for the past few years and picking them off. Who’s really calling these shots here, & what’s their plan?
Iran’s response will be to effect the flow of oil out of the gulf, Oil went up 3% today. Russian loves this.
I’m trying to think about this from a Russian point of view. There’s some kind of alliance between Iran, Syria, & Russia. It’s not solid, but there are strong connections, with Iran looking like the least solid partner.
Russian interests are to continue to break down the old world order so Russia can re-emerge as a world partner. To that end, blocking the straights doesn’t work well. Retaliation in EU or against EU partners in Iraq doesn’t work well. An act of war against a top Iranian general & official by USA is likely to push Iran closer to Russia, in order to protect it from further direct attack by the USA. That’s another Russian interest – another one is to remove, as much as possible, American influence from the middle east. Should we be looking for an announcement of a defensive alliance?
I’m thinking we will see a very strong push by factions in Iraq to expel US forces. Loss of Iraq would make continuing operations by US special forces in Syria untenable, & Russian and Iran can consolidate. Iraq & Syria would then become client states of Russia & Iran. This puts a lot of pressure on Turkey & the gulf states.
A retaliation that would work for both Russian interests would be an attack on the feeble, corrupt, and morally bankrupt kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That would really wedge the US between contradictions (depending on the attack). Another would be on US bases in or near the gulf. But that would be the “Chicago way”, maybe too chancy for Iran to try.
Thanks for gaming out the various national interests here, since in a rational government not led by a madman, that is how decisions are made.
The first step is clearly to pressure Iraq to order all US forces out of Iraq, as that makes the US military’s ME “mission” (whatever the hell it is now supposed to be) much more difficult. Blocking the straits is a late in the game catastrophic step and likely would only occur after an actual aerial bombardment of Iran by the US madman and his reckless generals. (I would note that Iran has to take into account the highly irresponsible and bellicose nature of the fools both in the WH AND the Pentagon, as the generals were the ones that included this assassination “option” in the mix of actions they presented to a known ignoramus. Perhaps the generals wanted to see exactly how much of a Russian asset our “Commander-in-Chief” actually is!) In any event, this assassination is the strongest wedge that has been driven between Putin and his WH protege to date.
Retaliation against KSA is the most viable strategic option, but it isn’t really “revenge” against the US, which is the party that actually declared war on Iran with this assassination of a high government official. But the most critical thing to recognize is that a state of war now exists between the two nations as a result of Der Trumper’s insane decision, made without the input (let alone consent) of the governed, and against the will of the people.
The Empire marches on, further hollowing itself out.
The US is done as a democratic/republic “country”, and the only long-term solution is a split, as hard and “insane” as that may sound. One country for the lunatics who are A-OK with an oligarchy-verging-on-aristocracy, and another that would like to continue on, progressively.
Or: do you believe that the US will exist 500 years from now? If so, really? If not, we’re just kicking this can down the road because it’s uncomfortable to imagine and live through the alternative.
And no, demographics is not the answer. They keep making more and more old people every day.
Sorry, had to get that out. Blah blah blah, I’ll drag myself over broken glass to vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is, so no, this isn’t progressive purity posting, just what I actually think is necessary…not even what I think is possible, never mind likely.
Too many people turned into garbage people for a democracy to function (to use one of your great old metaphors).
As for 500 years from now, it is unlikely that any traditional nation state will be around, as the planet’s climate will have imploded and there is no way to imagine exactly where the inhabitable regions will be.
5