“We took action last night to stop a war,” said United States President Donald Trump. “We did not take action to start a war.”
Trump uttered these words defending his decision to take out an Iranian military officer, Qassim Suleimani, with four others in a precision drone strike at Baghdad International Airport. The White House claims that the killing was preemptive; the Revolutionary Guards were supposedly planning an attack on American troops and diplomats in the Middle East.
Suleimani had been a force to reckon with for many years; Donald Trump’s predecessors, the Republican George W. Bush and the Democrat Barack Obama, were said to have considered the same option but decided against it, “not for lack of nerve but for fear of undue escalation and an unnecessary war with Iran,” says Jonathan Stevenson, writing for the New York Times.
What prompted Mr. Trump to go where Bush and Obama dared not tread was, supposedly, the death by rocket attack of an American contractor before yearend. Trump ordered the strike without consulting congressional leaders. “As with his other displays of martial fiat, his immediate impulse was probably to shock the liberal domestic audience, vicariously make himself feel tough, and assert raw executive power by going around the normal channels of decision making,” Stevenson continues. He enumerates what a well-functioning military and intelligence mechanisms would have done, had there been a sound, deliberate, collaborative and coherent logical policy in place. But there was none.
The attack comes amid efforts to impeach Trump for supposedly engaging the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on a political opponent in exchange for aid. Many believe the tough stance on Iran may have been meant to deflect attention from the embarrassment of the process, even as the Senate, if the vote were to be made along party lines, is likely to let Trump off the hook.
Perhaps, too, Trump simply wants to be perceived as intrepid.
The former National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, writes in an op-ed: “When Iran does respond, its response will likely be multifaceted and occur at unpredictable times and in multiple places. President Trump will then face what may yet be the most consequential national security decision of his presidency.”
Certainly the action will have consequences, not only for Americans but even for Filipinos—those working as OFWs in the Middle East, their families, and those who will be affected by fluctuations in the price of oil, which is essentially everyone.
We should be watching developments in Iran if only for these—and also to learn that such far-reaching decisions should not be made in a pique, or on a whim, or in a fit of bravado, but in careful consideration of profound consequences, using the advice of experts and one’s moral compass as guide.