A drone targeted and destroyed a vehicle travelling near Baghdad airport last week. Inside was Iranian general
Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran’s elite Quds Force and architect of terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. The United States claimed responsibility for the targeted assassination, sparking fears of reprisals and an ordered evacuation of US personnel from the country. The embassy in Baghdad
closed with a warning to Americans – diplomats cannot help you now.
Almost immediately, arguments erupted in Washington about the purpose of the attack, whether there really was an
imminent threat, as President Donald Trump later said, and what, if any, strategic goal was attained. The brutal truth is that there is no strategic gain because the Trump administration has no strategy. This was an impulse attack, a “gut” reaction, a farce of foreign policy that endangers more than it protects.
There is more clarity about what the drone attack did not do. It did not eliminate the threat of Iran attacking again, through proxies or directly. It did not destroy the Quds Force, which already has a
new leader. And it did not reverse the tide of growing Iranian influence in Iraq.
If anything, the assassination further destabilises the region. Rather than bringing troops home, thousands more US soldiers are on their way to the Middle East. Another Trump promise broken.
Soleimani was clearly a threat to US forces and interests throughout the region, but he has been for years. Why was he killed now when he could so easily have been targeted in the past? He certainly made his whereabouts obvious in flamboyant displays of his travels and meetings on social media.
The attack sent a message to Iran that the Trump administration is willing to risk all-out war if the violence against US troops and citizens does not stop. The problem with White House messaging is that it so often contradicts itself. Trump
tweeted that not only would the US respond with more attacks if Iran retaliated, but cultural sites would be in the crosshairs as well.
On the Sunday US news programmes, usually a venue for well-rehearsed administration talking points, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo contradicted this by saying that these sites would not be targeted. He went on to comment that the president never said that in the first place, despite the tweet being openly available. Trump then
commented again that yes, cultural sites are targets. However, he has since backed off from that threat.
Confusion did not end there. On Monday, a leaked defence department letter to the Iraqi military stated unequivocally that US troops were leaving the country. The defence department tried to walk that back by saying the letter was a draft and that there were no plans for a withdrawal. Sending the letter had been a mistake.
These disconnects are happening well before the fog of war descends. Imagine how much worse this can get.
So far, the repercussions of killing Soleimani have benefited Iran greatly. The US embassy in Baghdad has been evacuated. The Iraqi parliament has voted to kick out US troops. And Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s regime, weakened after years of
sanctions and a slowing economy, has received a boost in public support. Whatever moderate opposition had formed, they are going to have to lay low now lest they be seen as being soft on Iran’s mortal enemy.
More dangerous days lie ahead. Trump has already threatened that “should Iran strike any US person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner.” His initial insistence on targeting cultural sites is likely to have inflamed the general Iranian public even more.
Iran has already retaliated, with missile attacks on US-led forces in Iraq. Will this be enough to appease Tehran’s now emboldened
hardliners? The risk of escalation remains extremely high. And this is exactly how countries stumble into war.
Conventional “wisdom” says neither side wants such a conflict, but this is no conventional presidency. Trump believes he is smarter than all his generals. He does not understand the limits of air and sea power. He exudes the false confidence of someone who has never been in combat and he issues commands without leading.
Sycophants now serve the presidency rather than career officials and political appointees who could counter his impulsive instincts. The pressure to please outweighs the obligation to inform. Conditions like this have had disastrous results in the past, from
Vietnam and
Afghanistan to
Iraq.
The ease of drone strikes and their surgical precision may give the false impression that US threats will send Iranians cowering, but there are sound reasons previous administrations did not take a harder line with Tehran. A single bomb, a tweeted threat, a bombastic display of chest thumping – none of these replace deep strategy and the weighty concerns of war.
Brian P. Klein, a former US diplomat, is the founder and CEO of Decision Analytics, a NYC-based strategic advisory and political risk firm
