The killing of Iranian Quds Force leader Qassem
Soleimani in a targeted US military strike last Thursday
night ended the long, bloody career of Iran’s
chief of terrorism and subversion.
Shoshana Bryen describes
Soleimani this way:
Soleimani was head of the Iranian militias that killed 608
American soldiers in Iraq and maimed thousands of others through the
use of IEDs. He armed, trained, and commanded the Iraqi Kataib militia
Hezbollah that was responsible for the killing of an American
contractor in Iraq and the injuring of several American soldiers — and
for attacking the US embassy in Baghdad, which directly precipitated
the current situation.
And that’s only about the United States. Soleimani’s
IRGC-controlled militias sent tens of thousands of troops, mostly
Pakistani and Afghan, to Syria to commit large-scale ethnic cleansing
of Syrian Sunnis and precipitating the Syrian refugee crisis in
Europe. Soleimani’s IRGC-controlled militias ostensibly fought against
ISIS in western Iraq, but committed a variety of crimes against Iraqi
Sunni civilians there, as well. The arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon
with precision missiles, now aimed at Israel, is a Soleimani-led IRGC
operation. The establishment of Iranian missile factories in Lebanon,
Syria, and Iraq is a Soleimani-led IRGC operation.
Michael Doran, writing at the New
York Times, says the killing of Soleimani has significantly
weakened Iran and laid
to rest the Obama administration’s Middle East
strategy:
More than any other American military operation since the
invasion of Iraq, the assassination yesterday of Maj. Gen. Qassim
Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Qods Force of its Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corps, is a seismic event…Taking out the architect of the
Islamic Republic’s decades-long active campaign of violence against
the United States and its allies, especially Israel, represents a
tectonic shift in Middle Eastern politics. …His departure will make
Iran much weaker. It will embolden the country’s regional rivals
—primarily Israel and Saudi Arabia— to pursue their strategic
interests more resolutely. It will also instill in the protesters in
Iran, Lebanon and, especially, Iraq, the hope that they will one day
wrest control of their governments from the talons of the Islamic
Republic.
In Washington, the decision to kill Mr. Suleimani represents
the final demise of [President Barack]
Obama’s Middle East strategy, which sought to realign
American interests with those of Iran. Mr. Obama’s search for a modus
vivendi with Tehran never comported with the reality of the Islamic
Republic’s fundamental character and regional ambitions. President
[Donald] Trump, by contrast,
realized that Tehran’s goal was to replace America as the key player
in the Middle East.
The American
strike also killed another terrorist leader, Abu Mahdi
al-Muhandis. Rick Moran writes:
Also killed was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a top Iraqi paramilitary
leader whose long, bloody career includes attacks on American and
other Western embassies, as well as being a founder of Kata'ib
Hezbollah, a group responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American
soldiers in Iraq.
…In some ways, killing al-Muhandis was more significant than
the death of Soleimani. He's been an active terrorist against the US
since the occupation of Iraq and helped create the umbrella Shia
militia group Hashd al-Shaabi. Hashd was originally founded to fight
ISIS in Iraq, but has morphed into a shadow organization exercising
political and military control of Iraq on behalf of Iran.
The RJC
praised the President’s action and said that Soleimani’s death
makes the world as safer place. Democrats and the mainstream media
reacted differently, with many saying that we were getting into a
disastrous and illegal war with Iran. (They were wrong.)
But what counted most was Iran’s response. On Tuesday, Iran
fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two military bases in
Iraq where American and coalition troops were
stationed.
Maj. Gen. Hossein Dehghan, the military
advisor to the dictator of Iran, Ali Khamenei, told
CNN:
It was America that has started the war [by killing Soleimani].
Therefore, they should accept appropriate reactions to their actions.
The only thing that can end this period of war is for the Americans to
receive a blow that is equal to the blow they have inflicted.
Afterward they should not seek a new cycle.
In other words, the missile attacks were a face-saving “blow”
on America, but Iran did not want to continue or escalate the conflict
with the US.
That would be why no Americans were injured or killed. Iran
actually alerted the Iraqis hours before the attacks began, and
the Iraqis warned the US so that personnel could take
cover.
Iranian media reported that dozens of Americans died in the
missile attacks. John Hinderaker points
out that this false report, intended for internal consumption,
provided Iranian leaders with the political cover they needed at home
after the humiliation of Soleimani’s death.
Since there were no American casualties, the US did not
respond militarily and there was no escalation of the conflict.
Instead, President Trump delivered remarks to the nation yesterday
that were undoubtedly examined very closely by Iranian leaders.
In his remarks, President Trump talked about America’s strong
military capabilities and announced that new economic sanctions would
be imposed on the Iranian regime, making clear how America can and
would respond if attacked again. At the same time, the President
acknowledged the de-escalation of hostilities and left the door open
for future negotiations. The speech was a master class in deterrence
and diplomacy. (Transcript
here.)
Further
Reading:
Tyler O’Neil: Report:
Obama Administration stopped Israel from assassinating Soleimani in
2015
Alan Dershowitz: Easy
Call: The strike on Soleimani was lawful
Joe Lieberman: Why
can’t Democratic candidates simply admit Qasem Soleimani’s death makes
Americans safer
