Share Pin Share 90 Shares

When the gushing torrential water tosses stones pushing boulders, it is because of the force of its momentum. When the ferocious strike of an eagle, breaks the body of its prey, it is because of the timing of the strike. Thus the forces and momentum of the adept in warfare are so overwhelming and ferocious and his timing of engagement is precise and swift. Sun Tzu – Art of War

Prior to the airstrike in Baghdad, most Americans hadn’t heard the name Qassiem Soleimani or even knew his significance in the Iranian – U.S. struggle. On January 2 2020, President Trump welcomed the New Year with an airstrike on the most significant U.S. target since Usama Bin Laden and sent the strongest possible message to Iran short of invading Iranian territory. Many Americans will think that this is just another “bad jihadist,” but that would be an insult to the efforts of the U.S. forces and disrespectful to the extreme risk that President Trump took by assassinating the leader of the Iranian military.

Soleimani’s history didn’t start with the recent attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. His prowess for supporting Shia paramilitary forces, terrorist organizations, and insurgencies has not gone unnoticed in the U.S. Intelligence Community. Soleimani was a person of interest as he was rising through Iranian military ranks to become the Quds Force Commander in 1998.

For the busy:

Soleimani – leader of a covert hybrid Iraninan intel/special operations unit called the Quds Force

Quds Force responsible for most Shia militia related attacks in the Middle East

Iranians perfect the EFP to target U.S. lead coalition in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen

Quds Force sanctioned in 2007 by the Obama Administration

Trump Administration designates the Iranian military as an FTO in May 2019

31 December 2019 attack on the U.S. Embassy escalates tensions – emboldens President Trump

President Trump uses U.S. precedents and recent attacks to justify Soleimani assassination

Potential military responses from Iran include Strait of Hormuz closure, cyber attacks, Iran proxy attacks on soft targets

Quds Force

The Quds force has been described as a hybrid of CIA like actors mixed with Special Forces training, techniques, and activity. More accurate descriptions are shrouded by classification concerns due to the covert nature of the organization. Primarily supporting and executing external operations (outside of Iran), the Quds force has been known to facilitate groups such as the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Yemeni Houthis, and Shia militia groups in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Soleimani and his Quds Force have been tied to nearly every Shia armed group in the world and have carried out proxy attacks through these groups by financing, providing logistical support, arms shipments, direct troop support, and attack planning. As a result, a majority of the Shia militia group attacks can be attributed directly to Iran as the Quds Force operates directly from the Ayatollah’s guidance through Qassiem Soleimani.

Soleimani’s Quds Force has been linked to numerous attacks over the past 20 years and responsible for thousands deaths of U.S. military personnel and civilians. Soleimani’s main focus was on the U.S. led coalition. In an attempt to improve the lethality of attacks on U.S. targets, Soleimani began fielding an improvised explosive device (IED) capable of penetrating U.S. armored vehicles. Iran and Soleimani created explosively formed penetrator (EFP) devices and distributed these Iranian made IEDs to Shia militia groups and the Taliban across the Middle East. These EFPs were specifically designed to attack U.S. military forces in the Middle East and were the most lethal form of IEDs in existence. The (single) EFP generally remains intact and is therefore able to penetrate armour at a long range, delivering a wide spray of fragments of liner material and vehicle backspall (second GIF) into the vehicle’s interior, injuring its crew and damaging other systems. (Source: U.S. Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization)

Explosively formed penetrator (EFP)

What happens to U.S. Armored Vehicles:

Backspalling caused by EFP – NASA

Quds Force and IRGC Terrorist Designation

The QUDs force violent past led to sanctions by the Obama administration through the Department of Treasury in 2007, which prohibited any financial interaction to members and facilitators of the Quds Force. In 2019, the Trump administration took it a step further and designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Core (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). According to Iranian military command structure, the Quds Force is subordinate to the IRGC which ties the IRGC to the direct and indirect support of Shia terrorist groups worldwide. This was the first time that an internationally recognized nation-state’s official military had been designated as an FTO. According to the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Mulroy, this did not give the U.S. Department of Defense any additional authorizations against the IRGC and Quds Force. Regardless of overt authorizations, the designation of the IRGC as an FTO foreshadowed that the Trump administration was more likely to take direct action against Shia militia groups and IRGC members, and is likely to be used as justification for direct military action against Qassiem Soleimani.

Recent U.S. Embassy Attack and Timing

Multiple reports have suggested that Qassiem Soleimani directed Shia militia group Kat’eb Hezbollah (KH) to organize the protests and attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that caused damage to the outside perimeter and reception hall of the U.S. Embassy. Considering that a nation’s embassy is known to be that nation’s “sovereign land,” the attack on the U.S. Embassy was a clear and direct message to escalate tensions in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

U.S. Embassy Baghdad – Qassim Abdul-Zahra/AP Photo

The attack on the embassy was Iran’s response to U.S. strikes on Iranian supported Shia militia groups in Iraq and Syria which were conducted in a response to a mortar attack that killed a U.S. Contractor in Iraq on December 27. This chess match between the U.S. and Iran has led to the strike on Qassiem Soleimani and appears to be a match President Trump was ready for. If you consider the designation of the IRGC as an FTO, Iran’s strike on the Saudi oil refinery, Shia militia groups rapid turn to focus on U.S. troops, and the late December/early January events that concluded in Soleimani’s assassination, it would be hard to argue that the U.S. was not justified in their response. One could argue that this may have been the only time, and thus the perfect time, for the U.S. to take out a politically sensitive target off the battlefield.

U.S. Embassy Baghdad – Khalid Mohammed/AP Photo

The attack on the embassy provided a target of opportunity for President Trump, as it gave him the political capital to spend on a risky concept such as assassinating arguably the second most powerful man in Iran. President Trump cashed in on that capital immediately.

Trump’s Authorization

Since President George W. Bush began the Global War on Terrorism, many strikes against FTOs have been conducted over the last 20 years. Most of the strikes were considered legal under the Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed as a Joint Resolution by Congress on September 14, 2011. This set the precedent of authority to use military force on those responsible for 9/11 and any associated with the individuals and groups that planned 9/11, such as the fight against the Taliban as they provided safe haven for Al Qaeda. AUMF was also the legal foundation for strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria.

Obama Administration

In 2011, President Obama authorized airstrikes on Libyan air defense equipment in an effort to prepare the environment for Libyan nationals to topple Ghaddafi’s government and execute a regime change. According to David Rivikin Jr and Lee Casey who served under the Regan and Bush administration’s Justice Department, Obama’s strikes did not require U.S. Congressional approval as the Obama administration did not directly remove Ghaddafi from power. Their goal was to enforce a U.N. Security Council-approved “no-fly zone” to which the U.S. had an obligation to fulfill.

Now enters ISIS in 2013/2014. Although, ISIS was formed with legacy Al Qaeda members they declared that they were not associated with Al Qaeda and considered Al Qaeda and many affiliates to be enemies of the Islamic State. The Obama administration stretched the AUMF authorizations to justify direct action against ISIS. He did so after signaling that he wanted to repeal AUMF.

Trump Administration

In late 2019 and now early 2020, President Trump has exhibited no intention to restrict the military from taking direct action against Iran or any group should they pose a direct threat or attack U.S. interests in Middle East. This was evident by strikes on Syrian chemical weapons facilities in April of 2018. Military action when in the defense of U.S. interests and U.S. personnel does not require Congressional approval according to Rivikin and Casey as stated in their legal opinion piece from a Washington Post article in 2011. They argued that using military force did not have to be approved by Congress to “repel sudden attack” nor did they limit additional military force short of “declaring war.” President Trump later stated that the “elimination of Soleimani was not a declaration of war on Iran” and that “the strike was meant to stop a war with Iran, not start one.”

Consequences of Action

After the U.S. strike on Soleimani, the world waits to see what Iran’s response will be. Many U.S. Democrats lament President Trump’s action without Congressional notification and there will sure be cries relating to abuse of power, but even Democrats understand that Soleimani was a major threat to U.S. national security and service members worldwide. Democrat nominee front runner Joe Biden had this to say in response to the Soleimani assassination:

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s Response to Soleimani Strike

Also in a tweet, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif described the strike that killed the general as an act of international terrorism:

The US' act of international terrorism, targeting & assassinating General Soleimani—THE most effective force fighting Daesh (ISIS), Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al—is extremely dangerous & a foolish escalation.



The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism. — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 3, 2020

Understandably, some see the strike on Soleimani as an act of reckless escalation as the strike was against what many say is Iran’s second most powerful man, despite the fact that he was planning imminent attacks on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and on U.S. service members and contractors in Iraq. President Trump was in a geopolitical strategically precarious situation, but one that he could use to appeal to his base without significant blow-back from Democrats as he appears to have justification of military action. The world nervously awaits Iran’s response.

Potential Military Responses from Iran

Aside from recent responses such as Iran’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2018 (Iran Nuclear Deal), one that the U.S. withdrew from in May of 2018, Iran has multiple ways they could respond short of lobbing short to long range missiles at U.S. targets in the Middle East and abroad. Many think that Iran will retaliate in a fashion that would force the U.S. to engage Iranian Military forces and attack Iran’s homeland. Iran understands that they cannot win a war against the U.S. but there are several ways that Iran can show the world and the Iranian people that there are consequences to assassinating an Iranian official.

Shutting down the Strait of Hormuz

According the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a third of the world’s liquefied natural gas and almost 25% of total global oil consumption passes through the strait, making it a highly important strategic location for international trade. This could add further strain on a U.S. economy that is predicted to experience a small recession in 2020. The most effective measure would be to mine the strait which would immediately halt traffic in the one of the world’s most important seaways.

Strait of Hormuz and Oil/Gas Infrastructure – U.S. Energy Information Administration

Cyber Attack on U.S. Infrastructure

A missile attack on a Saudi oil refinery was quickly attributed to Iran and took Middle East tensions to their highest level since the Iran-Iraq war. Cyber-attacks have been shown to be less attributional as the originator of the attack is hard to narrow down. This may be Iran’s most compelling option as they can deliver a costly blow to the U.S. while attempting to deny responsibility. Iran has shown a willingness to use these tools and has shown the capability to attack U.S. infrastructure. In 2013, Iranian hackers infiltrated the control system of a New York Dam, raising concerns that American infrastructure could be quietly targeted. Another target could be the U.S. banking system or Wall Street as they’ve done in the past. This could also stifle economic growth in the U.S. and world economy.

Iranian Affiliated Shia Proxy Group Attacks

Iran could leverage their many groups across the Middle East and worldwide to conduct attacks on more accessible targets such as U.S. embassies, bases, service members, civilians, and companies to send a message. Proven as a means of operation in the past, Iran may not be able to get away with using proxies but could still conduct harassing mortar fire on U.S. interests in Iraq without much of a response from the U.S. military. Additionally, U.S. allies like Israel could see increased mortar attacks on Tel Aviv or other large population areas.

Final Words (Opinion)

The recent assassination of Qassiem Soleimani was the best possible time that the U.S. could eliminate one of the world’s most dangerous men. Throughout 2019, Iran showed that they were willing to escalate tensions without much retaliation from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. President Trump could not justify an attack on Iranian targets as U.S. service members and U.S. interests had not been directly targeted nor affected. After the December 2019 mortar attack on a U.S. contractor and the attack on the U.S. embassy, President Trump found his opportunity to take out Iran’s shadowy military leader, prove to the world and Iran that attacks on U.S. personnel will not go unpunished, and increase his chances of being reelected for a second term in 2020. Strategically this was a high risk move for the U.S, but an easy one for President Trump. Did President Trump prevent a war that could have spiraled into World War III or did he take the most significant step towards it?

Opportunities are never lost, just found by those who clearly see the power of trends and timing.

President Donald Trump