The Killing of the Iranian Military Commander Qasem Soleimani

The Killing of the Iranian Military Commander Qasem Soleimani

Legality or Illegality of the President’s Action

On 3 January 2020, Al Jazeera reported that Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, the top commander of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Quads force) and the lead architect of the regional security apparatus, was killed by the United States drone strike outside Baghdad international airport (Roberts n.pag). The assassination of the Iranian general raised international uproar with Iran vowing to revenge with a similar magnitude attack directed to the United States. The news followed a confirmation by the White House that an attack was carried out, killing Soleimani saying the act followed president Trump directive, and the intention was to deter future attacks allegedly being planned by Quds force and its proxies in Iraq. International commentators, especially from the Middle East, condemned the attack terming it international terrorism. However, President Trump and his aides defended the attack by arguing that it was legal by the authority bestowed on the President to protect the United States forces from attack. Subsequently, experts disagreed on how to characterize the act of killing Soleimani and the legality of the President’s action.

The President’s action to kill the Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani was legal in light of multiple critical issues according to international and national laws. In particular, the United Nations Charter allows a state to use force in self-defense if an armed attack occurs (BBC n, pg). In the context of Suleimani, the action of the President aligned with the UN charter if the US government acted in self-defense to prevent an imminent attack on the American lives. In 2010, the UN report on targeted killings, a comprehensive scholarship indicated that the right to use force against a real or imminent threat, a necessity of self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no moment of deliberation (BBC n.pg). In light of the metrics mentioned above, then the killing of Qassem Suleimani was lawful under the UN charter.

Further, it is essential to examine whether the killing of Qassem Suleimani was permissible under the United States domestic laws. Considerably, assassinations are not allowed by the federal law since 1981, and hence, there are criteria that the President weighed; that is, there was overwhelming evidence that somebody or a state is planning to launch a terrorist or military attack against the United States. In support of this argument, John Ballinger former legal advisor to President George W. Bush administration and a fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations states that ‘it is an exercise of the president constitutional authority as the commander in chief and chief executive to use force in the national interests’ (Kennedy & Northam n.pg).  Further, President Trump’s national security adviser cites the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which ushered in the incursion against Saddam Hussein. As such, in line with the mentioned authorization, it was legally incumbent on the President to use force to defend forces and the nation against attacks. The United States government labeled Qassem Suleimani as a terrorist in 2011 and the Iran Revolutionary Guard corps that Suleimani led was similarly designated as so in April 2019. Therefore, killing of Suleiman was permissible in the US domestic laws on the use of force to protect the nation and its citizens. Specifically, the President can use power, short of war, to protect Americans’ interests as authorized by Article II of the constitution (Roberts n.pg).

Finally, the issue of consent arises in justification of Qassem Suleimani killing on the Iraq soil. Commentators and international relations experts argued that the angry reaction by the Iraq government citing violation of its sovereignty by the United States indicated a lack of consent. However, the US troops were invited into Iraq to help in fighting the Islamic State insurgents. In this view, such an invitation constituted a form of consent, giving the US the right to protect its personnel and properties in Iraq (BBC n.pg).

Ethical and justification of the President’s action

Ethical consideration in decision making is critical in determining whether an effort is right or wrong. In this context, President Trump’s decision to kill Iranian general Qasem Suleiman can be justified using the teleological ethical theory. According to Kapten and Wampe, teleological, or consequentialist ethical theory employs a standard of purpose or end to determine whether the action was right or wrong (1). Efforts are taken to achieve a particular end (objectives) often aligned to a distant goal. As such, the principle of self-interest arises from the classical utilitarianism in the belief that it will serve a greater good.

In light of the above discussion, President Trump’s decision and action were ethical and justified because, according to the intelligence sources Qasem and the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps, through their surrogates in Iraq, planned an attack on the American interests in Iraq. Therefore, eliminating Qasem guaranteed a better outcome for many Americans citizens and their properties. Ideally, killing a terrorist who is planning to cause a massive attack on innocent people is a preferable outcome compared to allowing such a person to execute their plan. Robert (n.pg) underpins his observation by highlighting the fact that the President and the State Department cited overwhelming evidence that Qasem was planning an imminent attack on the United States. The argument justifying the President’s action derives credence from the consequentialist theory, where the outcome explains the means.

Comparing the elimination of Qasem and allowing him to carry out the intended attacks espouses one logical outcome, killing him was justified. In particular, American citizens and their properties are innocent of the crimes committed by the ‘system’ or their leaders, therefore, causing mayhem, death, destruction, and loss of wealth as casualties of war that a part of them do not support is unequivocally unethical. As such, President Trump’s decision was ethical and justified when juxtaposed to the consequences of letting Qasem live. Besides, the action is justified by the past aggression by the Quds Forces that was linked to the killing of American contractors and hundreds of both American and coalition forces in Iraq.

In conclusion, the killing of Qasem Suleiman elicited immense bitterness and exchanges by international relations experts, commentators, politicians, and nation-states. However, President Trump justified the legality and ethicality of his decision on the overwhelming intelligence and evidence that Qasem and his Quds force planned an imminent attack on Americans and their properties in Iraq. To mitigate the risk of a massive scale attack that can be catastrophic to the innocent citizens, the United States government decided to eliminate the leader of the terrorist organization to save thousands of innocent lives. In light of the above, discussion a preferable logical conclusion is President Trump was legal, ethical, and justified.