One of the most pointless policy debates ginned up of late by the anti-Trump media and Dems in Congress is whether an Iranian attack on U.S. interests was “imminent” prior to the U.S. military strike that took out Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. If such an attack was imminent, they say, then the U.S. military strike may have been justified; but if not, then the strike is probably illegal and Trump may have committed a war crime.
What this analysis ignores, of course, is that, regardless of whether such an attack was “imminent,” Iran has been waging war against the United States for the past 40 years, ever since its 1979 revolution and seizure of 52 American hostages.
Suleimani himself, moreover, had orchestrated the death of more than 600 Americans serving in Iraq for the past 16 years. Suleimani’s blood-stained record provided more than ample justification for targeting him while he was in Iraq plotting yet more terror attacks against American military personnel and civilian contractors.
Indeed, the U.S. military strike against Suleimani is best understood as a quick defensive measure taken when a moment of opportunity suddenly arose. Trump wisely seized upon this opportunity to free the world of a dangerous terrorist mastermind. A good deed and good riddance.