The Death of Qassim Soleimani
Alex Jain vs. Mustafa Master
ALEX JAIN
The American Airstrike in Baghdad was a Huge, Costly, Pointless Mistake.
On January 3, 2020, a US airstrike in Baghdad’s capital killed ten people, including Qassim Soleimani, in retaliation for the death of an American contractor by Irani forces. Soleimani, leader of the Quds force, the military intelligence faction of the Iranian army, was often considered as the second most powerful man his homeland. The airstrike was a debilitating mistake. It sparked a mass diplomatic crisis between the US and Iran, retaliatory Iranian airstrikes on American bases in Iraq, and numerous riots in the region. It also destabilized America’s already fragile international relations with Iraq, who banned all foreign armies (Hubbard et al., 2020).
Imagine if peace in the Middle East is a tower of wooden blocks that you make while playing Jenga as a child. The airstrike in Baghdad is that one piece that, if removed, will result in a loss of stability and will lead to the tower crashing down; game over. The following reasons highlight this logic:
1. Violence is not the answer. It is so easy to be violent. It is so hard to be peaceful. But if we look at examples in recent history, like America’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, both were colossal failures. Increased aggression with Iran will lead to many losers and no winners.
2. Questionable timing. There is much speculation that Trump launched the airstrike to draw attention away from the media circus discussing his impeachment proceedings, and for a boost towards his reelection campaign (Stanage, 2020).
3. Questionable motive. Various reasons were given by the Trump administration for the airstrike: from Soleimani being a grave threat to an attempt for world peace to deterring Iranian military action; these ranging responses suggest that the motivating factor was what many have speculated already, Trump’s ticket to a 2020 reelection (Cohen, 2020).
4. Nine other individuals died alongside Soleimani (Hubbard et al.). The assassination of Soleimani should have only killed him and should have been more covert. It was far too publicised.
5. Disproportionate response. The airstrike in Baghdad was not merely an eye for an eye but rather an eye for two eyes, a nose, a mouth, a face, two hands and two feet. The US response to the death of a contractor did not warrant the death of the second most powerful man in Iran (Hubbard et al.).
6. The US aggravated the situation by exiting the Iran nuclear deal. It was spearheaded by Obama in the hopes of curbing Iran’s nuclear program, in exchange for looser trade restrictions by the US and European countries towards Iran. This deal helped foster a period of stability quite alien to the region in recent years. When Trump decided to remove the US from the agreement in May 2018, reinstating hefty sanctions, the regional instability largely returned. Eventually, after the airstrike, Iran left the deal (Laub and Robinson, 2020). The point made here is that the US airstrike was the wrong direction that American-lranian relations went in, when another way, one involving diplomacy, was viable but was inevitably overlooked by Trump and eventually Khamenei.
7. Obama and Bush avoided it. While other presidents discussed Soleimani’s assassination, it was deemed too controversial and problematic to the region's stability (Panetta, 2020). What has changed now? The ego of the president.
8. The US should be an example to the world as a hegemon, not a tyrant or a fool. Obama's presidency personified the US as batman. Trump’s presidency has personified the US as the joker. The US should not be encouraging conflict but rather pushing towards peaceful diplomatic solutions, whether in Iran, Israel and Palestine or North and South Korea.
9. No briefing was given to Congress. Before the airstrike, legally, Trump should have notified the top eight members of Congress. By not doing this, he acted unethically and also highlighted the insecurities he has with members of the American government who disagreed with his rash decision (Wolf, 2020).
An important follow-up point which further proves how misjudged this act of violence was can be found in the way Trump reacted to the airstrike; in the midst of the destructive aftermath, Trump threatened to destroy Iranian cultural heritage, which was not only entirely unnecessary but was simply an atrocious comment to make. From medieval Islamic cities like Isfahan to ancient ruins like Persopolis, the heritage of Iran is precious and a pivotal testament to history, religion, and the human experience (Silkes, 2020). Imagine if Iran destroyed the Statue of Liberty, the Hollywood sign, or 70 other American cultural sights? It would be vile and a complete loss.
As such, the reasons listed above highlight why the US airstrike in Baghdad was immoral and unnecessary. Above all, the Baghdad airstrike seems like a step towards violence and destruction between Iran and America instead of one of diplomacy and tolerance.
MUSTAFA MASTER
The US Responded Justly to an Aggressor
We believe that there is appropriate and weighted reasoning for the airstrike attack in Baghdad that killed Iranian General, Qaseem Suleimani. Occurring on January 3rd, 2020 — executed by President Donald Trump, this act was the only viable option after Iran’s attack on US Iraq bases. Further, the assassination of Suleimani has prevented further airstrikes on bases housing Americans. The threat to American lives in lraq and the threat of Suleimani are two main reasons we believe justify the airstrike, further, supporting and justifying the decision made by President Trump.
Iran launched more than 10 airstrikes on bases housing American soldiers, blaming militant Kataib Hezbollah, member of the Mobilization Forces. Kataib and Suleimani have also interacted to further coordinate attacks on the United States. Moreover, on December 27th, Kataib launched more than 30 strikes at an lraqi base in Kirkuk, wounding 4 US service members and the life of a US contractor. With constant aggression towards the US militant bases in Iraq, a justified retaliation by President Trump involved 5 airstrikes in Kataib locations, with 3 in Iraq, to gain control of his sites. Further, officials reported that Suleimani planned to attack the US embassy in Baghdad and 4 other locations.
President Trump, who was initially against the assassination executed the operation to assassinate Suleimani after the killing of an American life, which thereby justified a threat to American lives in Iraq.
With regards to Suleimani being a threat to the world, if not the US, he was responsible for lran’s building and implementation of explosive devices to militants which targeted US troops in Iraq, and killed several service members, causing a quarter of the combat deaths in Iraq. He was also involved in the Syrian Civil War, providing forces to boost the corrupt regime at the time. He has armed and dealt with several non-state acting organizations like the Militants in Gaza and Houthi’s of Yemen. Lastly, he never followed his diplomatic duties, for example, despite signing the ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015, he continued pursuing nuclear weapons.
The above reasons and evidence justify the actions of the United States in response to the aggressor — Iran. In hindsight, this airstrike has greatly benefited Iran: loss of an attack-minded general from the military, less hostile environments post surrendering to the US, and a chance to move away from the corrupt foundations of the government. From killing American lives to posing a threat to the Middle East — especially Iraq, this provides enough rationale and basis for the assassination of Suleimani. An action so severe is bound to have rippling consequences, but the action was necessary.
References
Cohen, Z. (2020, January 14). Barr and Pompeo shift justification for Iran strike from imminent’ threat to deterrence.
Hubbard, B., Fassihi, F., & Specia, M. (2020, January 3). The Killing of Gen. Qassim Suleimani: What We Know Since the U.S. Airstrike.
Laub, Z., & Robinson, K. (2020, January 7). What Is the Status of the Iran Nuclear Agreement?
Mcintyre, Jamie. “Pentagon Vigorously Defends Trump's Decision to Kill Top Iranian General, and the Intelligence behind It.” Washington Examiner, Washington Examiner, 7 Jan.
Panetta, G. (2020, January 4). Why neither Bush nor Obama killed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, who the US just took out in an airstrike.
Rivers, Bill. “Trump's Assassination of Iran's Qassem Soleimani Was the Smart Thing to Do.”
NBCNews.com, NBC Universal News Group, 7 Jan. 2020,
Silkes, E. (2020, January 10). Why Threats Against Iranian Cultural Sites Threaten Humanity.
Stanage, N. (2020, January 7}. The Memo: Will Iran crisis sideline impeachment process?
Wolf, Z. B. (2020, January 11). Why Trump's changing Iran story is costing him support in Congress.
