Trump and Pompeo claim that they have made America safer by killing Suleimani. Are they right?
It depends on the answers to two questions:
1. Do the immediate benefits of killing Suleimani exceed the down sides?
2. Does Trump have the finesse to avoid climbing the escalation ladder to a full scale conflict?
My reactions are as follows:
1. The first question is complicated; for one thing, you have to know how replaceable Suleimani really was, from the Iranian perspective. The gist of this appears to be clear, however. The Iranians have repudiated the nuclear agreement, thereby bring their bomb much closer. The Iraqis are in the process of throwing us out of their country. Our allies are unhappy with us. Oil prices are up, and the markets are down. Does the loss of Suleimani’s ability as a tactician and fixer to cause trouble balance that? Not likely, which is why the Israelis, who had more reason to kill him than anyone, and the ability to do it, never did.
2. The man with the golden gut, who is already threatening to commit war crimes in Iran? Are you kidding me? His instincts will always be to use disproportionate force, which is a recipe for war.