Is the killing of Soleimani an indicator of an overall change of US strategy in the region or was it a brazen step taken by Washington to enter a new war for President Trump to win?
New Delhi: The already disturbed diplomatic scenarios in the middle-east were made dangerously complex with the Pentagon confirming the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force, in Baghdad, Iraq.
Soleimani (62) was killed alongside Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilisation Forces), in a US drone strike in the early morning hours of Friday.
For Washington, Soleimani’s hands were soaked in American blood. The Trump administration in explaining their decision to assassinate Soleimani claimed that the Pentagon focused not just on his past actions, but also insisted that the pre-emptive strike was meant as a deterrent.
According to the official statement of the Pentagon, ‘He (Soleimani) was actively developing plans to attack US diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region’.
What continues to be debated is the timing of this assassination. International experts claimed that, the US was unmoved in all recent Iranian operations which were allegedly plotted by Soleimani and his team. These include the attack on commercial tankers in the Gulf, shooting down of a US drone, and the firing of rocket at Saudi Arabia’s Aramco oil facility.
However, a series of low-level rocket attacks against Washington’s bases in Iraq, wherein one US civilian contractor was killed, seems to have rung the death bell for the General.
Drifting away from traditional outlook, Professor Liyaqat Khan – an expert in geopolitics and strategic studies hinted on the possible involvement of Israel in the assassination of the Iranian General. “Israel is a very lucrative partner of the US. If killing Soleimani was beneficial to Israel, then they might have executed the plan, or if not then (even after killing him) they would simply throw the card on the Americans,” Khan said.
Why Soleimani
The Iranian General was the second-most-powerful leader in Iran, after only Supreme Leader. And Washington was on his hunt for decades — his operations within Iraq since 2003 killed more than 600 US personnel.
In 2007, the US sanctioned Soleimani and declared the Quds Force a terrorist organization. These sanctions were doubled in 2011, for his alleged involvement in providing material support to the Syrian government.
In April 2019, President Trump’s administration declared the entire Revolutionary Guard a foreign terrorist organization. This received a swift response from Iran, which declared all US forces in the middle-east as terrorists.
Assassination an Indicator of Strategy Shift
Until the death of Soleimani, Washington’s strategy on Iran was of ‘maximum pressure’ — pulling out of the nuclear deal. Under the Obama administration – the US pinned sanctions and other forms of diplomatic pressure —to peaceful accommodate with Tehran over its nuclear program and regional policies.
However, with the killing of the General, the game and rules of engagement have significantly changed. If Soleimani’s death is to be taken as a barometer for analysing the shift in US policy towards Iran – then the question is the strategic value behind it.
Soleimani was an apparatus of the state. The Supreme Leader’s announcement of Soleimani’s successor indicates that Tehran was prepared for his death. However, even after his death – Iran will continue on to implement their plots and schemes.
It seems the only reason to kill Soleimani was that Washington wanted to enter a new war that Trump can win.
