The assassination of Qassem Soleimani was highly questionable from an international law perspective, and extremely dubious as a strategic decision. Those are interesting angles to explore, but I want to focus more on what the man was doing with his life before he lost it.
A simple explanation is that he was simply defending the Iran regime’s interests (and their Islamic revolutionary vision) in the region. But that formulation elides more than it explains. There’s a moral dimension to both Iran’s vision and Soleimani’s tactical and strategic decision-making that goes beyond simple national self-interest.
I don’t come at these questions with a pro- or anti-Israeli bias, nor with any preference between Sunni and Shi’a, Arab or Persian. I’m generally in favor of self-determination for all nations and peoples, and I advocate religious moderation, tolerance, and pluralism. So, there are many aspects of Iranian self-interest that I’m inclined to respect, but my overall impression of their regime is entirely negative. Where I have any sympathy for them at all that isn’t applicable to any nation and any alternative Iranian government, it’s in a recognition that their adversaries are not better, and are often worse.
Anything critical I have to say about the Mullah-run government in Tehran, I could say probably with more force about the Kingdom of the Sauds. Without question, the Taliban fail every test I have for religious tolerance and moderation.
As for America having any say in how these different groups govern their people, that’s also a very complicated question that could merit its own discussion.
As things stand, we’re enmeshed in the region and cannot be indifferent to the decisions that are made there. On that score, Soleimani was possibly the most problematic actor on the stage. I say that, in part, because of his tremendous cynicism. Nowhere was this more on display that in his willingness to use Sunni radicals to further his schemes. He sheltered al-Qaeda figures before unleashing them on us in Iraq. He told Assad in Syria to let them transit to Iraq and then used the predictable civil war to convince the Iraqis to seek his protection. He sheltered behind their radicalism to prop up Assad as the protector of religious minorities and moderates in Syria, but he funded the same groups in Palestine. You can call this genius because it surprised his enemies and was so effective, but it came at a staggering cost in lives and refugees and destruction.
As an Iranian general tasked with preventing the U.S. from setting up shop in Iraq and gathering strength to take down his own government, he certainly faced difficult choices but I don’t think this can justify many of the decisions he made. I believe this, in part, because I don’t share the belief that the government of Iran as it is presently constituted deserves to be saved. But I also say it because Soleimani was engaged in more than self-defense. His project was highly sectarian in nature, and aimed at expanding Iran’s influence beyond its borders. In this latter sense, his indifference to human suffering (exemplified by the civil war and humanitarian crisis in Syria), can be condemned without the mitigating considerations involved in protecting his home regime.
In general, I think Iran’s regional dominance, which was achieved primarily through Soleimani’s astounding cynicism and generalship (with a major assist from President George W. Bush), needs to be rolled back if there is going to be a semblance of peace achieved in the Middle East. I don’t know that America has the first clue how to accomplish this, nor do I think the Americans are the best “deciders” in this instance, but Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq would all be better off with less Iranian control over events.
If eliminating Soleimani furthered this objective in some ways, it would make it less of a reckless act to have assassinated him, but it’s hard to see how this is supposed to work. In the short term, Iraq responded by asking America to leave. That has plenty of merit in many ways, but it would actually strengthen Iran’s dominance in Baghdad. It would also strengthen their position in Syria and, thus, Lebanon. It would probably help ISIS regenerate, which would, as it has in the past, push Iraqis and Syrians into Iran’s arms for protection.
And that gets to the available alternatives to Iranian dominance. If it’s ISIS or similarly radical Sunni groups, that’s good for no one. If it’s pretty much the same kind of folks, but just pro- rather than anti-Saudi Royal Family, it’s hard to see that as preferable.
When we step back like this and look at the problem from a wider perspective, it’s easier to see why killing Soleimani was unlikely to make matters better either for America or for the people of the region.
Ideally, countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon should enjoy self-determination rather than suffering as battlegrounds in a sectarian fight between extreme visions of Islam. In that sense, the less aggressive Iran is in those countries, the less aggressive the pushback will be. But, as cunning and amoral as he was, Soleimani was merely a soldier in a larger war, and the incentives driving both sides won’t be altered by his absence.
A solution would involve both sides, so getting Iran to focus more inward would help but wouldn’t be sufficient unless the Sunni radicals did the same. Unfortunately, since the time of the Russian-Afghan War, the Saudis have sought to do anything to prevent their own radicals from looking inward.
I’d like to believe that the protestors in the streets of Iran could bring an end to their revolutionary government. I think that would be the most hopeful development possible. I can picture a moderate Iran focused on the well-being of its own citizens rather than waging some regional Holy War. And that’s something I can’t say about Saudi Arabia.
Thanks for this. Adding a slightly longer historical perspective, the whole region is still dealing with what David Fromkin 30 years ago called “A Peace to End all Peace”, aka, the national boundaries imposed (primarily) by the British and French after World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
Persia’s borders are more rational than anything in the Arab regions of Asia.
Thanks for this very interesting essay, which causes one to have to really think about the bigger picture. Revolutionary Iran, like North Korea, has had to live its entire existence with the US superpower seeking its destruction as a political entity. One has to believe that such a pervasive, enduring threat tends to pervert the incentives of leaders and give them a siege mentality, since a siege is precisely what the global superpower has decreed.
It’s pretty rare for a military figure to be such an immeasurable genius that his assassination would really have much effect upon the nation he fights for. Think of our “assassination” of Admiral Yamamoto in WWII. I don’t think it much affected the Japanese war effort one way or another, but views differ. Britain (somehow) killing Napoleon, that would have had a clearly negative effect. Der Trumper killing Soleimani, hard to really say so. All of his Machiavellian schemes certainly had to be approved by the Supreme Leader.
It certainly does appear that every time the (rather weak) forces of moderation (including the urban people themselves) begin to make some slight “progressive” headway in Iran, causing the possibility that some greater “inwardness” might arise, we can always rely upon the American “conservative” movement to say “Fuck that!” and do what it can to ramp up hostilities. Think of Cheney repudiating offers of Iranian aid after 9/11, culminating in the endless rumors that an attack was being prepared as the final act of the Bushco tragedy, and reports that Admiral Fallon basically had to refuse to carry out Cheney’s orders and torpedo his career. Then, after Obama clearly strengthened the hand of democratic forces and moderation by brokering the nuclear deal, von Bolton and Der Trumper had to blow that up (with no plausible alternative), impose the current ruinous oil sanctions (why are these respected by anyone, BTW?), and then conduct this (almost certainly illegal) martyrdom/assassination.
So we’re now in probably the most explosively dangerous period with Iran that we have ever been. And it’s hard to know if General Soleimani is cheering this from his grave, or rolling over in it.
Trump, it appears, likes to wage war by other means — maybe an assassination here but his preference seems to be tariffs and sanctions. He has all but destroyed the Iranian economy and greatly harmed the people. ( See WaPo on impact of sanctions.)
But he has a cause like he did in China. You know they were stealing our intellectual property and lots of people believe it. I do think there is some truth to that but hard to know if it is just Apple or lots more.
And the Orange Cheeto promised to throw out the Iranian deal way back in 2015. And here was Iran, with billions of dollars, we stole from them and gave back in light of the nuclear deal. And the sanctions were lifted. And the economy was recovering nicely. But the dumb fucks couldn’t find a way to make peace, since that is how it is with religious idiots, and so they started shit on the Arabian peninsula and in Syria. WTF did they think was going to happen and why would the general be so fucking stupid to think Trump, of all people, would just ignore him? So now all sanctions have been reimposed and some new ones on metals I understand. And the price of basic needs has more than doubled. When you have a government this stupid you gets what you pray for. Make peace idiots and forget the fucking bomb and the other idiot Ayatollah.
They certainly will hold out until the next American election, and most likely will never agree to knuckle under to Trump in any circumstances; their national honor simply will not permit it.
As for trying to play ball with America, they agreed to sign on to Obama’s deal, complied with it, and had the “conservative” movement tear it up for no good reason, while kicking them in the ass with sanctions to boot. Iran could be forgiven for concluding that the only answer is to get the nuclear technology locked down, since the incompetent white electorate of America refuses to take “yes” for an answer.
The big question is how exactly Der Trumper got other countries to go along with enforcing economic sanctions on Iran when it was carrying out its obligations under the nuclear agreement? Why agree to stop buying Iranian oil simply because Trump and Pompeo say so?
True, we are not building any long term friends but that problem seems to be on both sides and has been for decades. Problem for Iran is we are the big guy on the street. Better for them to join us. Europe likes to sell things to us like Mercedes and such and, as I said, we are the big guy on the street. And we provide a defensive umbrella for them. Iran may have its national honor to attend to and perhaps when this fool is gone things will improve. In the meantime they have consider the feelings of the Von Bolton types for awhile and if they get carried away with building a bomb, at least so long as Trump is around, they will be surprised what comes next. They are not being wise and that is true going back many years and even after the nuclear deal. They seem like a foolish bunch to me. I feel bad for all the people there who suffer for their leaders need to show off.
“I can picture a moderate Iran focused on the well-being of its own citizens rather than waging some regional Holy War. And that’s something I can’t say about Saudi Arabia.”
This.