Words that Justify Killing & Retaliation: “Terrorist,” “Imminent Threat” & “Assassination”

“History is not kind to men who play God.”

James Bond in No Time to Die (2020)

Make no mistake; assassinations can start wars. Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination on June 28, 1914 was the immediately precipitating event that escalated regional tensions into World War I. Ferdinand was the heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian crown, which died after the war. The mere notion that one person can, without consulting anyone else, order and justify a “preemptive” political execution that can easily be interpreted as a de facto declaration of war is terrifying enough, but even if war can be avoided, the message is clear: any government can justify the preemptive execution of governmental targets in unfriendly nations by simply telling the world that it is acting in self-defense.

We can apply the label “terrorist” to the intended target, and indeed from our perspective that individual may have engaged in terrorism. But likewise, if using that label creates justification for extermination, note that Iran has labeled a number of high-ranking Americans, including Trump himself, as “terrorists.” Using the Merriam Webster definition of assassination – “to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons” – given the regional political tensions, it’s hard to attempt to use “defensive” as opposed to “political” to avoid calling a preemptive execution of a military/political operative in an unfriendly state what it really was: an assassination.

Western nations raised holy hell when Russia purportedly assassinated Russian dissidents and/or former intelligence agents – like Alexander Litvinenko and Boris Berezovsky – in London or when Saudi Arabia lured US-resident (but Saudi citizen) Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi into a Saudi consulate in Turkey where he was promptly killed and his body dismembered. The big difference between these assassinations and US efforts at preemptive killing is that the Russians and Saudis, however unjustified and murderous, were killing their own people.

When a target is clearly identified, openly discussed before Congress and widely accepted as an on-going threat – like Osama bin Laden – where it is clear (he admitted it on camera) he ordered and perpetrated events of mass killing within the United States itself (the 9/11/01 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon), bringing him to justice was widely accepted as justified. Bin Laden was also not a part of any government, simply an ideologue with hatred and inflicting death in the West as his openly stated goal.

If in fact self-defense based on an “imminent” attack on Americans was the justification, an international standard, where is the evidence? “As questions continue to mount regarding what some sources referred to as ‘razor-thin’ intelligence used to conclude that Soleimani was preparing an impending attack against U.S. diplomats and service members, the nation’s top diplomat continued equivocate, only referencing Soleimani’s past history of horrendous attacks as justification for ordering the strike that took his life.

“‘There’s been much made about this question of intelligence and imminence,’ Pompeo said. ‘We know what happened at the end of December last year ultimately leading to the death of an American. So, if you’re looking for imminence you need to look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against us,’ he said, referring to Soleimani’s alleged role in the death of an American contractor in Kirkuk.” LawAndCrime.com, January 7^th. Nothing new. Nothing specific.

No one is going to maintain that Quds General Qassim Soleimani was an innocent man. His actions have directly led to the death of many Americans, mostly soldiers resulting from attacks he ordered on US bases. That’s not the point. We launched an attack not on Iranian soil but in an entirely different country he was visiting – Iraq – without the permission of or even notice to the Iraqi government. Iraqi nationals were also killed, and Iraqi facilities destroyed, in the US strike that killed Soleimani.

“While no one is arguing that Soleimani wasn’t responsible for atrocities against U.S. service members, the U.S. government’s legal justification for ordering the death of Iran’s top general is a matter of significant import on the geopolitical stage.” LawAndCrime.com. Was America legally justified or a nation gone rogue? Was the President playing judge, jury and executioner entirely on his own.

Days after his initial statement, Mike Pompeo changed his story to the press, saying that there was a specific imminent attack on a specific US embassy in the offing. Still, no real evidence of any “imminent” threat was presented as Pompei and key advisors briefed Congress after the fact: “At a moment when the Middle East is asking if the U.S. and Iran can avoid confrontation, senators and representatives said that briefings from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, CIA Director Gina Haspel, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire were risible in their lack of detail concerning core concerns, including the intelligence behind the killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and the future course of U.S. strategy against Tehran. Meanwhile, briefers also raised concerns that U.S. forces in Iraq could face heightened threats from Iran-allied Shiite militias in the wake of Soleimani’s death.” The DailyBeast.com, January 9^th.

Rand Paul joined one other GOP senator who attended that briefing, in expressing total disgust at the paucity of proof offered by the Trump administration for the attack: “Sen. Mike Lee, a libertarian-leaning Utah Republican who rarely breaks with Trump, exited the Senate’s briefing calling it ‘the worst briefing on a military issue’ he’s seen in nine years in Congress. It was ‘insulting,’ Lee said—so much so that he will now support a measure to curb Trump’s authority to wage war in Iran after hinting a day before that he’d vote.

“‘They had to leave after 75 minutes, while they’re in the process of telling us that we need to be good little boys and girls and run along and not debate this in public,’ Lee said. ‘I find that absolutely insane. I think it’s unacceptable.’” The DailyBeast.com. Trump then followed his usual pattern and doubled (quadrupled?) down, without presenting a shred of evidence: ““I can reveal that I believe it probably would’ve been four embassies,” Mr. Trump told Laura Ingraham of Fox News in an interview. He repeated that “fact” at a rally in Ohio on January 9^th. The Trump administration also announced a series of additional economic sanctions against Iran.

It gets worse. “Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday [1/12] that he ‘didn't see’ specific evidence that Iran was readying to attack four U.S. embassies, as President Donald Trump claimed [the week before], though Esper said he shared Trump's view that such an attack was ‘probably’ in the works.” NBCNews.com, January 12^th. Everybody just had a feeling? Enough to order an extra-judicial killing other than in a theater of war?? Don’t we call that “murder”? “Thou shalt not kill” has been repealed by Trump’s evangelical followers?

Thus, there is no conclusion possible other than there was no “imminent” threat of attack on American targets. This was a simply unilateral action on the part of an individual US president without justification under international law and without the sanction of any other elected or judicial branch of government. He just picked the worst alternative presented to him by his military advisors. Suspiciously, it was a macho headline-grabbing effort by an impeached president facing a possible trial in the Senate and a near-term reelection bid. His base loved the effort, many not realizing what is at stake. According to virtually all polls conducted on point, most Americans were not happy with the attack and its aftermath.

We all need to know that Donald Trump has effectively sent a disturbing message to the world: a head of state only has to use the words “imminent threat” (even without a stitch of evidence) to justify a unilateral decision to assassinate a government official from another, unfriendly power, as he/she travels outside their home country in other than a battle zone. Even if such an execution takes place in a third-party country that has not given permission for such a killing on its soil. Since Iran frequently operates through surrogates, like Hezbollah and any number of Shiite militias, what Trump’s actions now justify is the execution of any US governmental official anywhere on earth, most probably through such surrogates. Just use retaliation and self-defense as an excuse, with or without proof.

Using surrogates enhances deniability, but with Trump’s sanction of assassination as a bona fide political tool against unfriendly states, even without hard evidence of an “imminent threat,” American installations, companies and officials are now “legitimate” (as the US seems to condone) targets… not just from Iran but from any nation that is willing to use a baseless “imminent threat” rubric to kill a designated American. Iran can even offer bounties for the execution of such American citizens, using the same thinly veiled justification offered by Donald Trump. We are still hovering on the brink of war with Iran; Americans have never been more at risk from Iranian attacks than they are today. Further, do we really think that if this conflict finally did escalate into a full-blown war that our mutual “defense” treaty allies would join the United States in this battle? Don’t count on that!

You might also notice how Iran deescalated its assaults on US (and allied) targets after the US broke with its almost 40-year-effort of hostility against Iran and signed the six-nation nuclear containment accord with Iran in 2015 and how it seriously re-escalated such attacks on US and US allies (from tankers in the Gulf to Saudi oil fields) after the US withdrew from that treaty in 2015 and imposed even greater sanctions on Iran. Trump and his followers may believe that his bullying belligerent actions are effective deterrents and influence shapers, but reality has generally produced precisely the opposite of what was intended.

Iran’s leadership’s failure to take immediate responsibility for the downing of a Ukrainian jet may have led to protests across the land but let no one mistake this anger as elevating the United States in the eyes of the Iranian people. The protests will subside, but the hatred of the United States is only growing stronger. Trump’s forays into foreign policy have been a disaster.

As the China trade phase one agreement is a total joke, as North Korea doubles down on their threat to increase their nuclear and missile capacity, as foreign powers lie Russia continue to build new approaches to influence US elections (even being invited to do so by the President), as floods/fires/droughts/storms rage from a climate change that the US government only makes worse, as Russia and China have stepped into to replace US influence as we withdraw and as we have opened the door for hostile nations “legitimately” to kill Americans, Donald Trump appears to be the least competent and most dangerous president in US history. We have so completely vacated the moral high ground.

            I’m Peter Dekom, and I wonder if the United States may have passed the point of no return, a place where undoing the damage inflicted by the Trump administration may no longer be possible.