The zapping of Suleimani - initial thoughts

It seems to be the logical next step in a ratcheting of tensions between the US and Iran going back several months. In fact, according to Secretary of State Pompeo, it had a preemptive element to it:

Did the US take out Qassem Soleimani over business as usual, or something much more acute? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has begun laying out the case — in somewhat cryptic terms, necessarily — that the decision to kill Iran’s top commander and virtual #2 regime leader came as a necessity to save American lives from “imminent threats.” That assessment was “intelligence based,” Pompeo told CNN this morning, and the danger was specific to the region . . .

 So now the question looms: What will Iran's response be?

We'd best brace ourselves for something serious, but that does not argue against the move.

You see, Iran is our enemy. That's a special category, one that includes North Korea as well. Russia and China are different. They're adversaries. We eye them warily, but still trade with them and make attempts to enter into strategic-security agreements with them. (And we're well aware that they have amicable relations with the above-mentioned enemies.)

We did just that with Iran, says a certain swath of the opining public, in the form of the JCPOA, which the US, under the Trump administration, abandoned.

Which brings us back to the fact that Iran is our enemy. You don't legitimize enemies - rogue actors - with agreements. Recall how much humiliation John Kerry and Wendy Sherman were subjected to by Iranian foreign minister Zarif in the Vienna and Geneva meetings at which the agreement was hammered out. And recall how Iranian missile development and stockpiling continued without missing a beat even after it was signed. Recall how Ayatollah Khameini - and Qasem Suleiman - continued to publicly assert that the US remained Iran's enemy. Recall how the crew of a US naval vessel was captured on the day Barack Obama was scheduled to give the State of the Union address, how that crew was photographed on its knees, with the crew members' hand behind their heads, and how the Iranians kept the crews' cell phones and laptops.

Enthusiasts of the JCPOA have to isolate it from the overall context to even attempt to defend it. The agreement was full of quasi-legalistic provisions for seeing that Iran couldn't get a nuke for ten years, but was not crafted to recognize that the Iranian regime is an inherently unreliable negotiating partner, due to its ideology, which sets Iran on a course to destroy the US and the West generally.

There's Suleiman's track record of ordering hits on dissident Iranians and Saudi Arabian government figures and his global reach. 

Of course, the leading Democrat contenders for that party's presidential nomination are weighing in, with a whole lot of empty platitudes:

Asked about terrorism in Afghanistan in the September debate, Elizabeth Warren responded, “We need to treat the problem of terrorism as a worldwide problem, and that means we need to be working with all of our allies, our European allies, our Canadian allies, our Asian allies, our allies in Africa and in South America. We need to work together to root out terrorism.” Work with our allies! What an original and groundbreaking suggestion!

Moments later, Pete Buttigieg added, “if there’s one thing we’ve learned about Afghanistan, from Afghanistan, it’s that the best way not to be caught up in endless war is to avoid starting one in the first place.” And he’s one of the experienced veterans in the field. Did the U.S. start the war in Afghanistan? Or did al-Qaeda start it with the 9/11 attacks?

Bernie Sanders added, “I think that what we have got to do is bring this world together — bring it together on climate change, bring it together in fighting against terrorism. And make it clear that we as a planet, as a global community, will work together to help countries around the world rebuild their struggling economies and do everything that we can to rid the world of terrorism. But dropping bomb on Afghanistan and Iraq was not the way to do it.”

And Joe Biden is stuck in this reflexive: “whatever President Trump is doing at any given moment must be the wrong thing” mentality — shifting back and forth between Trump being too weak and feckless, and too aggressive and reckless, depending upon the day. Back in June, Biden declared, “Two of America’s vital interests in the Middle East are preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and securing a stable energy supply through the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is failing on both counts.” (This was after Iran claimed it had shot down an American drone.) First, it’s as if Biden had completely forgotten Iran seized American crews and released photos of them on their knees back in 2016. Second, since that drone incident, ships have been passing through the Strait of Hormuz without incident — presumably in part because of the U.S. Navy making regular exercises, patrols, and demonstrations of force in those waterways.

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure the take that claims there's some kind of general resentment among Iranians for the CIA's role in Mossadegh's 1953 ouster is still a factor in US - Iran relations, a resentment that encompasses such a wide array of elements as to include the radical Shiites who came to power in 1979.
Um, no. There was no love lost among the theocratic forebears of the current regime :

While Mossadegh had enjoyed great popularity earlier in his term, his coalition had come under great pressure, and former allies had begun to oppose him. Chief amongst these was Ayatollah Kashani, the speaker of the Majles, and a vital influence for the next generation of politicized clerics, significantly, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. I personally find it very interesting that the US has not made an effort to publicize these connections. Given the tensions between the governments of Iran and the United States since 1979, one would think that undermining the Iranian clerical leadership through showing the links to the coup would be in the interests of the United States.

And bear in mind that the Cold War was in a particularly intense phase at the time. Mossadegh was making some pretty socialist moves, notably nationalizing the oil industry that had been owned by a British company. The general world-stage climate was also a level of the context. The following year, the CIA helped oust Jacobo Arbenz as president of Guatemala, and a good thing, too. He had explicit ties to the Soviet empire. The US had a keen eye on developments such as these.


So the deed is done. This post doesn't conclude with any kind of hot take. No declarations of what Trump should do or not do. No casting aspersions - or cheerleading for - any other Middle East actors. No predictions about what the next set of moves looks like.

I'll just say that any argument that getting rid of Suleiman was a bad idea is off-base.