On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that the killing of Qasem Soleimani is beneficial in both the immediate and long term, but the middle term is “somewhere between anxiety-inducing and terrifying.”

Brooks stated, “First, in the near term, the immediate term, which is, I think it’s reasonably a good thing that somebody who was responsible for the deaths of 600 Americans and hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East meet some justice. … Then there’s the middle term, and that’s somewhere between anxiety-inducing and terrifying. Because we just — I don’t think either Iraq or Iran or the U.S. want to have a war, but they’ve got to show they do something, and then we do something, and it could escalate into something. I think it’s extremely unlikely. But they play this game. … And so, in the middle term, I think we’re overall right to be worried about that. And then, in the long term, I think talent doesn’t grow on trees, and this guy was their best guy. And so, getting rid of your enemy’s best guy probably in the long term yields some benefit.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett