Killing Soleimani: The end of the world or the beginning of a bolder, better one?

Killing Soleimani
Fars News Agency [CC BY (]

By killing Iranian General Soleimani, America just kicked Iran in the teeth.

Many say his fiery demise was long overdue and will save lives. Not sure about this metric, but one thing’s certain—there’s one less terrorist doing his dastardly worst in the world.

Best of all, Soleimani’s death may trigger the end of an evil Iranian regime and the beginning of real freedom for Iranians.

Worth the risk? It is to them. Risk and reward aside, we’re living in dangerous days.

Is America’s playing with fire and inviting more bloodshed? Absolutely. A leading presidential candidate says we just “threw a stick of dynamite into a tinder box” and he may be right this time.

To be fair, the president has an age-old Iran problem on his hands. It’s a situation he claims was exacerbated by the policies of his predecessor in the form of clandestine cash payoffs, hostage ransoms and flat-out appeasement.

All true. But I would argue that the supreme monument to Barack Obama’s misunderstanding of the Iranian regime (and other truly Islamic nations) is his signing of a worthless and enabling nuclear agreement.

It’s a testament to self-deception or narcissism or naiveté or a blend of all three. No matter. What’s done is done.

Soleimani is dead.

And now leaders of the regime see blood red. Depending on whom you read or watch, Iranians are either enraged and ready for revenge or are secretly overjoyed and itching to rebel.

I’m no foreign policy expert, but based on actionable evidence and word of mouth, I must conclude that Iranians who chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” likely mean us harm.

Here’s my advice to the administration:

Keep punching them in the mouth. Meet force with overwhelming force. Violent people respect violence; give them more to respect. Draw a real red line in the sand and send this message. Hit us and we’ll hit you back—harder.

This approach will hearten Israel, our only real ally in the region. They daily face Iranian haters with missiles and nuclear dreams. All they hear from their Arab enemies is that the Jews and their Zionist friends deserve death. Israel’s annihilation is the will of Allah, you infidel.

Tough choice, only choice

How does America deal with a regime that refuses to recognize, let alone value, Israel’s right to exist and our right to help them do so?

Refuse to give an inch. Deploy the diplomacy of power. Respond disproportionately. Proportionate responses are for proportionate adversaries. We’re the superpower and they’re not. And their regime may be weaker than we know.

Iran’s leaders are clinging to power by subjugating their people and engaging in tired propaganda and incessant chest beating. The sanctions are squeezing them. The killing of Soleimani has unnerved them.

This strategy seems extreme because it is. It could mean war. But let’s be honest with ourselves for once about Islam and Iran—it’s not a religion of peace, and they’ve been at war with the West for centuries.

Gasp. Truth.

And to those ripping Trump and going all Chicken Little over the killing of Soleimani and its repercussions, what is your strategy? How would you deal with a regime that seeks regional dominance and the destruction of Israel?

End of Part One. Part Two coming soon.

2 Replies to “Killing Soleimani: The end of the world or the beginning of a bolder, better one?”

  1. Help me understand the difference between Mr. Obama’s “worthless and enabling nuclear agreement” with Mr. Trump’s Talliban agreement. The Taliban has proved itself not to be trustworthy. What makes you or the administration believe that in this case they will be. Isn’t what Mr. Trump has done with the Taliban “worthless and enabling”? Are we going to be consistent or excuse Mr. Trump because of party?

  2. Differences:

    Iran is a terrorist state that has long been aspiring to dominate their region and is now pursuing nuclear weapons development; The Taliban is a terrorist organization.

    Obama’s worthless and enabling nuclear agreement was as viable and deterring as Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” nonaggression agreement with Hitler. Obama’s quid pro quo with the regime was one-sided: He lifted sanctions and Iran pretended to stop pursuing nuclear weapons.

    I would say the Taliban will pretend to stop pursuing their murderous goals. I think Trump knows this is true. I also think that he thinks he’s a world-class deal-maker. I’m not sure how his Taliban deal enables them; we can always send back the troops if and when they break the deal. I guess it all depends on how much one cares if the Taliban subjugates Afghanistan with terror. I also think Trump just wants an out.

    If you’re on the side of ending never-ending wars like the one in Afghanistan, you may also not believe in forcing democracy on countries in which democracy is incompatible. This is my position. Leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone.

    I never make excuses for Trump, btw.

Leave a Reply