Global Legal Innovation Advisory,
The liberal rant against legitimate military actions is never-ending. Due to the lack of the understanding of national security and international relations, the liberals never leave any stone unturned in blaming the government.
The strike was legitimate, proportionate and necessary. In the US there is a legally authorised protocol for targeted killings complete with a quasi-judicial process. The great liberal hero Obama used it more than any other President in American history.
Qasim Suleimani was a terrorist of the highest order. I meet Iranian asylum seekers and apostates here in the UK, and they tell horror stories about the regime in Iran. They welcomed the news unlike many journalists in their comfortable sofas. The people questioning the US' action need to ask the Iranians how good Qasim Soleimani was. It is very rich to live in a democracy and brand your government as fascist, whenever they take any action for the national security.
Suleimani was always on the hit-lit of the US, it was not done earlier because of the ongoing US-Iran nuclear deal and the Syrian civil war. That said, I believe that wars anywhere are bad and have catastrophic consequences everywhere. I hope that the conflict does not escalate and is resolved through deliberation.
But if it does escalate, it is important to understand that Iran is not an artificial creation of European colonialism, unlike other countries in the middle-east, but a millennia-old civilisation whose nationalism runs deep. Iranians are not likely to respond to a major war with the United States by blaming their own leadership and trying to overthrow it. So regime change is not possible. I have great admiration for Iran and its people but to hell with the fundamentalist regime.
As they say, it tends to repeat and as it is visible from the series of events in the past with respect to Persia/Iran. Iran and India shared boundaries as ancient civilisations and we faced common adversaries together be it the Mongols or Greeks. One thing we need to acknowledge about Iran is that it has always been a great power, but Persian Empires have been like the rise and fall of winter crops.
The Icarus paradox is visible if we study Iran’s history. It is said that ‘The higher the eagle flies, the harder it falls’, this has always been the case with Iran.
Xerxes and Darush-I took the Persian Empire to its highest glory, but the Achaemenid Empire could not last for more than a century or two. Alexander annihilated the empire. The great Parthian Empire could not survive for more than a couple of decades. Sasanian Empire took Jerusalem from the Romans into its folds, but could not stop the Arabs, who defeated them in just after a few decades. The Islamisation of Persia followed this. Chengiz Khan destroyed the Khwarezmian Empire in the 13th century. The Caliphates and the following empire were never able to bring Persia the same glory. But Iran always remained a dominant power in the region.
Even the pre-revolution Iran, which was highly funded by the west due to the belief that Iran would be a formidable ally in case of any conflict with the Soviet Union, became a highly industrialised country and was even ahead of Korea and Taiwan. Post-revolution the western funding stopped and was transferred to Saudi Arabia, this weakened Iran and it took a couple of decades for the nation to stand on its feet again.
In the 21st century, the Iranians due to their smart and ruthless domestic and foreign policies, coupled with the help of strategic planning and the vast network of non-state actors, were able to make themselves again into a formidable regional military power. Presently, the situation is IRAN = YEMEN = IRAQ = SYRIA, the new Persian empire of our times. Their increased interference in the region and the recent disproportionate show of ballistic missiles suggest that this time Icarus has gone too high.
(This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. Internationalism Editorials neither endorses nor is responsible for them).