OPINION — Ten minutes into President Trump’s speech at his first 2020 presidential re-election campaign rally in Toledo, Ohio, last Friday, he drew great cheers when he said, “If you dare to threaten our citizens, you do so at your own grave peril.”
Moments later, Trump brought up the U.S. Special Forces raid that, last October, killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of the ISIS terrorist group. One minute after that, he was on to the January 3, assassination of Iranian Quds Force leader Gen. Qassem Soleimani, which Trump described as a “bold and decisive action to save American lives and deliver American justice.”
For the next ten minutes, Trump rambled on, comparing his response to the demonstration against the American embassy in Baghdad to the Obama administration’s troubled handling of Benghazi (Cheers), claiming erroneously that Sen. Bernie Sanders (“Crazy Bernie”) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (“a real genius…nervous Nancy”) condemned the strike against Soleimani (Boos).
Then he riffed on Congress wanting to be briefed ahead of taking such an action saying, “We had to make a decision. We didn't have time to call up Nancy, who is not operating with a full deck.”
Not satisfied with that, Trump added a completely fictional story about Rep. Adam Schiff, whom he called both “Shifty Schiff” and “little pencil neck.” Trump portrayed Schiff as wanting to be briefed ahead of time but delaying it because “I can't make it now because I'm trying to impeach Trump.”
Trump then accused Schiff of being one who “leaks to crazy CNN, see, with a little red light on. [Audience shouts "Boo"] Not too many people are watching CNN, but he leaks. So, he'll say it, you know, off the record, I got to hurry up because everyone's watching me in the hallway on my cellphone.”
Trump made up a conversation with Schiff saying to CNN, “Off the record, they've got the No. 1 terrorist in the world, Soleimani, and they're going to get him. They're going to take him out in the next 10 minutes. Please don't tell anybody I told you, but so we have — we have breaking news, President Trump within the next 20, 25 minutes, looks to be taking a terrorist, General Soleimani. He's going to do it and it should be happening about the next 20 minutes, 19, 18, 17.”
Trump concluded this totally fictional story of a leak to CNN, saying Soleimani “disappeared. I don't know what happened to him,” all because Pelosi, Schiff and the Democrats “want us to tell them so that they can leak it to their friends in the corrupt media. [Audience shouts "Boo.”]
Here was the president of the United States entertaining his campaign rally audience with a made up tale that his political opponents would leak highly secret information that Trump used to cover up the real reason for the attack [what “imminent” attack?] and his own failure to follow the law and general practice in keeping Congress informed of covert military actions that could lead the country into outright war.
Sadly, we have come to accept Donald J. Trump’s corruption as acceptable Presidential conduct with his false stories, outright lies and low-life language.
The new question is do we now have to resign ourselves to assassination of enemy country leaders as being an acceptable tool for American foreign policy, since Trump may believe it useful for his re-election campaign?
Using some American military action to aid a presidential re-election is not a new thought for Trump. Others have pointed out that eight years ago, President Obama was faced with Iran increasing its attempts to acquire a nuclear capability. In one of his own televised statements on November 16, 2011, Trump said, “This is a great time to negotiate. Unfortunately, we have a president that doesn't know the first thing about negotiation. We have a real problem in the White House.”
As a result, Trump said, “I believe that he will attack Iran sometime prior to the election because he thinks that's the only way he can get elected. Isn't it pathetic?”
Of course Trump was wrong. There was no attack Instead, Obama did eventually negotiate, together with British, French, Germans, Russians, Chinese and the European Union, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 that halted and reduced Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Perhaps that was why Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in May 2018 and started his ever increasing economic sanctions which have had a devastating effect on Iran’s economy. On the other hand, since Trump began increasing sanctions, Iran has increased its military activities in Syria and Iraq and Tehran has slowly backed away from commitments under JCPOA.
At the same time, Trump’s earlier ordered assassination of al-Baghdadi changed the subject and got him favorable comment at a time when he was in trouble for giving Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a free hand in Syria.
Trump promoted the killing of al-Baghdadi as if it were a TV special.
First, Trump watched the attack on the ISIS leader’s location take place from the White House Situation Room. Then, he began promoting it as if it were to be an upcoming TV special. At 9:23 p.m. on the evening of Saturday, October 26, 2019, he tweeted: “Something very big just happened!”
The White House later that night announced the President would have a “major statement” at 9 a.m., the next day, Sunday, October 27.
Trump appeared the next morning on nationwide TV and called al-Baghdadi “a brutal killer,” dramatically adding, “He died like a dog. He died like a coward. The world is now a much safer place."
Thus, began what John Cassidy would later call in The New Yorker magazine, “Donald Trump’s ‘Baghdadi Died Like a Dog’ victory tour.” That Sunday, his network TV appearances ran 48 minutes, saw him provide gory details and included Trump’s statement that it was “something really amazing to see … as though you were watching a movie.” Trump’s al-Bagdhadi victory tour lasted for several days and included his claim that the ISIS leader’s death was a bigger achievement than the killing of Osama bin Laden during the Obama administration.
With that background, it should have been no surprise when the opportunity arose to assassinate Soleimani. At a time when Trump faced impeachment, he would order it done.
Forget justification. Soleimani was a dangerous foe, a clever military leader who was responsible not just for American deaths, but the deaths of thousands of others as well. Soleimani had been targeted before by other presidents, but they withheld giving the order because of the implications of what could happen next.
I doubt Trump, as first claimed, acted against Soleimani because Nawres Hamidan, an Iraqi-born, 33-year-old, naturalized American defense contractor was killed December 27, at a military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk by rockets fired by an Iranian-backed militia. On January 5, 2020, an American Army sergeant and two Defense Department contractors were killed by al-Shabab terrorists in Kenya and no White House response has even been mentioned.
Instead, based on Trump’s campaign rally speech last Friday, I believe the president acted against Soleimani because the December 31, 2019, Iran-supported, militia demonstrators had threatened the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. For the President, this recalled Benghazi.
As he told the Toledo crowd, “I saw what was happening. I said what's that all about? And that was going to be another Benghazi had they broken through the final panels of glass.” Trump claimed, “Soleimani was actively planning new attacks and he was looking very seriously at our embassies and not just the embassy in Baghdad, but we stopped him, and we stopped him quickly and we stopped him cold.”
No one knows what happens next, but it is clear that the U.S. has an assassination list. That was shown by the failed attempt made the same night that Soleimani died, to kill Abdul Reza Shahlai, the commander of the Yemen division of Iran’s elite Quds Force, near the Yemeni capital Sana’a.
For Trump, ordering this type of military action appears easier than dealing with broader attacks which could involve numbers of troops, an extended period of time and both military and civilian deaths.
What’s most bothersome, is that Trump may believe these so-called targeted killings have less risk in starting a real war, but at the same time create a positive, political advantage to him at a time when he most needs it.
The Cipher Brief is an apolitical national security platform, though we welcome opinion pieces and clearly label those pieces as opinion. Submit your columns for consideration to Editor@thecipherbrief.com
