There's a lot of debate about the legal significance of Trump's decision to assassinate the head of Iran's Qud Force. In a broad sense, it is very difficult to convict the President of war crimes, simply because Congress, the Constitution and the public have largely ceded military matters to the executive branch. There have been various Congressional measures that allow the President to strike at "terrorists" associated with 9/11, but Soleimani was hardly involved with Al Qaeda (in fact, he was a nominal ally against Al Qaeda and ISIL). There was also the authorization to use force to topple Saddam Hussein, and Soleimani was obviously in Iraq when he was killed. Add in the assault on the US embassy in Baghdad that Soleimani was likely involved with somehow, and you can stretch a justification for killing him. Almost certainly after the fact.
If this reporting is accurate, Trump was given some responses and Soleimani was thrown in there as a the "absurd option." Basically, it's like offering your toddler dinner options of spaghetti or rusty razor blades. The idea is that they will pick the spaghetti. After the embassy attacks, Trump went for the rusty razor blades and they had to scramble to come up with a legal rationale. History has certainly shown that the rationale can be as thin as paper, but it will still work to shield the president on international and military affairs.
The days of mourning for Soleimani are coming to an end, and I'm sure Iran is looking at options. If they were smart, they'd target Trump properties all over the world. They could even phone in bomb scares and clear the buildings before they blow them up. No (or few) casualties, but it would drive Trump insane watching the Trump Towers in Rio or Trump Tower Punta Esta burn and crumble on TV. Iran wouldn't even have to target the US properly to make their point.
Trump acted impulsively, because...duh. But Iran has the ability to strike in myriad ways that we are likely not expecting. Because Trump had Soleimani killed and claimed it was legal, Iran can make the same claims. In twenty years, maybe the World Court will issue a sternly worded ruling. In the meantime, the legality or illegality of Trump's actions a tertiary to how Iran responds and how we respond to their response.
No comments:
Post a Comment