One of the many big questions looming over President Trump’s decision to assassinate Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani is this: Was it a good idea?

Some Iranian officials have called the killing of General Suleimani — whose role in Iran has been likened to that of an American vice president, chairman of the Joint Chiefs and C.I.A. director rolled into one — an act of war. But if it was, it took place without any of the public discussion in the United States that preceded actions like the 2003 American invasion of Iraq.

American officials have justified the attack in Baghdad as retribution for the general’s own actions and as deterrence of future American deaths. The strategic implications, though, can be confusing in this quickly unfolding debate.