Lawfare Archive: The Soleimani Strike Two Years Later
Sep 22, 2024
auto_awesome
Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at Brookings, and Dan Byman, a terrorism expert, delve into the aftermath of the U.S. strike on Qassem Soleimani. They discuss whether the anticipated backlash from Iran was overstated and analyze the unexpected reductions in U.S.-Iran hostilities. The experts explore Iran's strategic restraint, the complexities of military operations in the region, and the longer-term implications for U.S. interests in Iraq, highlighting the need for new diplomatic approaches amid evolving geopolitical tensions.
The assassination of Qassem Soleimani prompted initial fears of escalation, yet Iran's response was ultimately restrained, avoiding widespread conflict.
Internal challenges within Iran, including the COVID-19 pandemic, significantly limited their military escalation capabilities following Soleimani's death.
The legality of the Soleimani strike has sparked ongoing debates about executive power and the implications for U.S. foreign policy.
Deep dives
Overview of the Soleimani Strike's Immediate Impact
The assassination of Qasem Soleimani has been a pivotal event in U.S.-Iran relations, deeply impacting regional dynamics. Initially, there were significant concerns that this strike would provoke a substantial Iranian response, potentially leading to a wider conflict affecting U.S. interests and personnel in the Middle East. In retrospect, many of these fears did not materialize to the expected extent, as the anticipated dramatic retaliatory actions from Iran were limited. While some responses occurred, such as missile strikes, they did not escalate to a full-scale war or massive confrontations, allowing U.S. interests to maintain a relative level of stability in the region.
Iran's Response and Domestic Challenges
Iran's response to the Soleimani strike was notably restrained, reflecting a strategic calculation to avoid an all-out conflict with the United States. The Iranian leadership faced internal challenges, notably the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which weakened their capacity for military escalation. Additionally, the regime was concerned about the potential repercussions of provoking further U.S. military involvement, thus limiting their response. Despite the initial rallying around the flag effect following Soleimani's death, domestic issues, including the aftermath of a tragic civilian aircraft shoot-down, shifted public sentiment and complicating the political landscape in Iran.
Changes in U.S. Military Presence and Iraqi Stability
In the aftermath of the Soleimani strike, U.S. military forces in Iraq faced increased threats from Iranian-backed proxy groups, leading to a recalibration of U.S. military presence in the country. The number of attacks on U.S. facilities rose, prompting a consolidation of forces to select bases perceived as more secure. This shift limited the operational effectiveness of U.S. forces, complicating the ongoing fight against ISIS and undermining U.S.-Iraqi relations. The increasing autonomy of Iranian-affiliated militias in Iraq fostered an environment of instability, contributing to a declining influence of the U.S. amidst rising anti-American sentiment within the Iraqi political landscape.
Assessment of Soleimani's Legacy and Iranian Capabilities
Soleimani's death raised questions about the future of Iranian military operations and their capacity for regional influence. While the assassination was seen as a significant blow to the Quds Force, the operational structure of Iran's military capabilities remained largely intact. The leadership successfully institutionalized their military operations, continuing to train and deploy capable commanders across various theaters of conflict. Thus, while Soleimani was a prominent figure, his removal did not drastically diminish Iran's overall military effectiveness or its ability to pursue its interests in the region.
Legal and Strategic Implications of the Strike
The legality and strategic justification for the Soleimani strike remain contentious issues, raising concerns over executive overreach and the precedent it sets for future military actions. Critics argue that the justification provided for the assassination lacked sufficient grounding in both U.S. and international law, noting that there was no concrete evidence linking Soleimani to an imminent threat. Furthermore, the strike has led to ongoing debates about the implications for U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding accountability and the risk of escalating military engagement without congressional oversight. Ultimately, the event serves as a case study on balancing national security interests with legal and ethical considerations in military operations.
From: January 5, 2022: Two years ago this week, the head of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassem Soleimani, was killed in an American strike. At the time, we convened a group of Brookings and Lawfare experts to talk about the potential benefits and risks of the strike, and two years later, we got the gang back together. Benjamin Wittes sat down with Suzanne Maloney, the head of Foreign Policy program at Brookings and an Iran specialist; Dan Byman, terrorism expert, Middle East scholar and Lawfare’s foreign policy editor; and Scott R. Anderson, Lawfare senior editor and Brookings fellow, to talk about what two years has wrought. They discussed whether the threat of terrorism and escalation in response to the strike was overstated, if U.S. interests were harmed in Iraq as a result of the strike, and what may have kept the Iranian regime from taking stronger action than it eventually took.
