Nation deserves an explanation

To understand whether President Donald Trump was justified in taking on the risks that could result from the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Americans must be told, in detail, about the intelligence assessment underlying Trump’s calculation and shown a comprehensive plan for the nation’s future involvement in a region now dramatically unsettled.

There certainly is justification for ordering the drone strike on the evil Soleimani but whether Trump was wise to green light the attack and set in motion yet-to-be-known consequences in the Middle East is a verdict that history must render.

In a region where little the United States has tried militarily and otherwise has worked for the past seven decades, it’s possible that such a surprising and forceful move could yield positive results. But it seems more likely to lead to further American lives and resources squandered, an outcome Trump promised to avoid and the nation cannot bear.

Earning benefit of the doubt

The president has not earned the benefit of the doubt. His leadership and demeanor have often been erratic and his statements are routinely dishonest and divisive. But neither is it fair to reflexively attack as self-interested or doomed Trump’s decision to kill a brutal military leader. Soleimani’s destabilization of the Middle East via actions in Syria, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon has caused thousands of deaths, including those of hundreds of American military members, and his casualty count would continue to mount were he allowed to live. Whether or not his killing was an illegal act, as some Democrats are claiming, that does not mean it was prudent. And Trump should have notified the appropriate congressional leaders.

Soleimani, 62, led the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and was the mastermind behind Iran’s support of anti-American insurgents and terrorist organizations throughout the region. Killed on Jan. 3 along with him was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a high-ranking Iraqi Shia militia leader closely allied with Iran. Both were in Baghdad to orchestrate the attack on the U.S. Embassy, according to the Pentagon.

Both men were also instrumental in the fight against Islamic State forces that until recently allied them with the United States, a reminder of the complexity and uncertainty of attempts to craft U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Soleimani was developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members and had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months that killed an American contractor and Iraqi soldiers.

These facts matter. Amid the chaos of the holiday season and the political burnout of a nation tuned into Trumpian plot twists for three years, the recent Iranian attacks on our forces, facilities and allies got less attention than they normally would. A takeover of a U.S. Embassy orchestrated by an enemy state is an unconscionable provocation, and a failure to respond would embolden tyrants and terrorists across the world.

Escalating U.S.-Iran tensions

But while it’s not certain Trump’s response to this dilemma is a mistake, it is clear that he erred in creating this crisis. The conflict between Iran and the United States has escalated since May 2018, when Trump pulled out of the multinational deal that kept Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. Iran was living up to the deal, and doing little to directly provoke the United States.

However, Trump, against the nearly unanimous wishes of his advisers and U.S. allies, pulled out of the nuclear deal with little justification other than an insatiable desire to undo the work of his predecessor, Barack Obama. Since the withdrawal, Iran has renewed and reinvigorated both its nuclear program and its animosity and attacks toward our nation.

In his brief remarks from Mar-a-Lago on Friday, Trump simply stated that Soleimani was planning action against the U.S. That’s not enough. The administration must lay out in detail evidence to show the imminent danger that leaving him alive would have created, because the potentially terrifying consequences of killing him are clear. Iran and its allies are vowing vengeance, and while their militaries are no match for ours, their ability to commit acts of both traditional and cyber terrorism are significant.

Numerous players, exhibiting varying levels of duplicity, are at work here. Traditional U.S. foes like Russia, China, Iran and Syria have their own complex agendas, and so do allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel. It seems unlikely that any of these players want a war in the region, but every escalation brings that threat closer, and the president now faces a heightened responsibility to protect U.S. military members and civilians from attacks.

At his news conference Friday, Trump said, “We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start one.”

It’s time for him to show us the reasoning that led up to the attack, and the plan for the aftermath. Only time will tell whether the president was right.

— The editorial board