According to the Iraq prime minister, Iranian General Soleimani was in Baghdad to participate in peace talks Iraq was attempting to broker between Iran and Saudi Arabia--not to engage in some imminent nefarious anti-American plot, as the Trump Administration is disingenuously attempting to suggest. It's clear why the Trump Administration is lying: constitutionally Trump as Commander-in-Chief has only unfettered powers to repel attacks on the US. Contextually the assassination of the general appears to have been opportunistic in nature.
There have been attempts to paint Soleimani as a bad actor, that he has been implicated, although indirectly through proxies or Iran allies, in deaths of American soldiers. I heard Chris Wallace dubiously argue on Fox News Sunday that Iran, not Yemen, was responsible for the recent attack on Saudi refineries. But the fact is that Iran has refrained from direct involvement in hostilities. We could similarly argue that Americans have died in Vietnam from (say) Russian or Chinese-made munitions and/or military guidance. I understand that Soleimani is a nasty piece of work, but Trump's attack was an act of war. And his post-attack provocative rhetoric, promising an overwhelming response to any reprisals, even target cultural sites with no military significance, is the stuff that escalates unnecessary wars.
I've been complaining for some time about the gullibility of some libertarians who actually took Trump's America First rhetoric seriously, as if Trump was a closet non-interventionist. They nodded in agreement as Trump lashed out at the alleged Deep State bureaucracy sabotaging him. They shrugged off as Trump with his macho adolescent rhetoric spoke of doing much worse than waterboarding, a form of torture that Trump insists works, and of targeting the families of terrorist suspects. After all, his rivals were equally irresponsible, Cruz promising to bomb targets until the sand glowed and Rubio entertaining the idea of imprisoning Americans at Gitmo. Trump promised to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS. So when Trump threatened to commit war crimes against Iran (i.e., target non-military, cultural sites) for any reprisals against killing Soleimani, it was just another item in his rhetorical bluster.
But to me, it was more than bluster. I always viewed Trump's attack on George Bush's wars as a political tactic against rival Jeb Bush, not a principled one. And if and when you properly diagnose Trump's trade war rhetoric, especially his insane talking point about US trade representatives giving away the store in win-win transactions and his eagerness to utilize economic warfare methods, like tariffs and sanctions, it's clear that Trump's only concern is fulfilling his political agenda and getting reelected. Like Obama, Trump's deceptive rhetoric on Middle East intervention doesn't pass the smell test. If anything, he has expanded Obama's undeclared drone wars. He has claimed credit for defeating ISIS, which was created AFTER American intervention. He has hired neocons like Bolton and Pompeo.
However, there's some evidence that Ron Paul, who has been a critic of the House impeachment of Trump, is finally realizing Trump is not a non-interventionist and is spoiling for a disastrous war with Iran.
