The Assassination Debate: President Trump and the Drone Killing of Qassem Soleimani
The Assassination Debate: President Trump and the Drone Killing of Qassem Soleimani
The recent drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's elite Quds Force, has reignited a debate about the role of the U.S. presidency in extrajudicial killings. Questions abound, with many weighing the morality and implications of such a move. This article delves into the historical context, examining the actions of previous presidents and their precedents.
Historical Precedents
President Donald Trump's decision to order the killing of Qassem Soleimani has sparked intense discussions. Critics argue that such actions fall short of what should be done, citing the need for international cooperation and due process. Some even joke that had Trump followed a more conventional approach, such as sending a constable to make an arrest, the outcome might have been different.
Yet, it's important to note that the use of drone strikes for targeted killings is not a new phenomenon. President Obama, known for his preference for drone strikes, is often cited as an example. According to sources, Obama sent over 542 drone strikes during his tenure, leading to the deaths of nearly 3,800 people, including 324 civilians. This raises questions about the ethics and effectiveness of such methods.
The Costs and Consequences
The immediate death of Qassem Soleimani undoubtedly dealt a significant blow to Iran's operations and capabilities. However, the broader implications of his killing are far more complex. An analysis from a renowned expert suggests that Iran might adopt a strategy similar to the one used by Hannibal during the 2nd Punic War: focusing on the fact that it was Trump who authorized the strike without consulting the American Congress or Senate.
Imagine if Iran had taken a more extreme step and assassinated a high-ranking U.S. official, such as Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, while on a diplomatic visit. This would have triggered a severe U.S. response and international condemnation. The article Choosing War: Iran, U.S. the Soleimani Assassination highlights that such an action would have put a tremendous strain on relationships with allies, especially in Turkey, who would be forced to oppose Iran's actions.
Consequences and Allies
The assassination of Soleimani without consultation has raised concerns about the U.S.'s approach to foreign policy and its reliance on unilateral actions. It has left many allies questioning the U.S.'s commitment to their sovereignty and security.
As mentioned in the analysis, Trump's decision not only puts the U.S. at risk of international isolation but also damages relations with allies who feel that their governments were not informed or warned about the potential consequences of the attack. This is a risky move that could have long-lasting negative effects on the U.S.'s global standing and influence.
Conclusion
The debate over the ethics and consequences of the Soleimani assassination is far from over. While many may agree that Soleimani was a dangerous man, the broader implications of such actions on international relations and the stability of alliances must be carefully considered.
Without a doubt, the incident has shifted the dialogue on the role of the presidency in matters of national security. As President Trump has over 12 months left in office, the long-term ramifications of this decision will continue to be felt by both the U.S. and its allies.
Further Reading
Analysis of the Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama Choosing War: Iran, U.S. the Soleimani Assassination Final Drone Strike Data (Obama Administration)Follow our ongoing coverage for more insights on this developing situation.
Download our latest newsletter