The targeted killing of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who as former commander of Iran's Quds Force spent years as an unabashed pyromaniac intent on setting fires in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip, was designed to send an unequivocal message to the Iranian leadership. Although America has decided to pull up stakes and decamp from flash and crisis points like northern Syria, which it does not see as a clear and present threat to American security, it is also committed to wielding an iron fist against anyone – no matter how high-ranking – who is behind attacks on American soldiers or civilians or attempts to breach the sovereign territory of an American embassy.
After ignoring Iran's provocations in the Persian Gulf region these past few months, US President Donald Trump decided to implement his policy of red lines with Tehran. That doctrine includes not only economic sanctions and airstrikes, but also targeted killings that convey a sense of determination.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Indeed, this was a watershed moment in the history of US security, because since World War II the US has consistently avoided direct hits on individuals in the uppermost defense and political echelons of the governments of rival and enemy nations. This time, the 45th president didn't hesitate to set a new precedent.
Moreover, the dramatic action in Baghdad indicates that all the signs that pointed to the president's intention of leaving the region were nothing but a ruse. When it comes to the war against Iranian terrorism, the White House is digging in deep, and the recent deployment of about 3,000 additional US troops to the region is proof of that.
Nevertheless, even when it comes to leading figures on the axis of evil and terrorism – like former Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi or Qassem Soleimani, who are responsible for a long and bloody string of terrorist attacks, some of which targeted Americans – retaliation has been and will be massive both in terms of the severity of the punishment. Hopefully, this strategy will hold these movements and nations in check now that the price attached to their continued terrorist activities was made so clear on Friday.
Trump vs. Carter and Obama
The hit on Soleimani underscores the distance between the current president's methods and those of two earlier presidents who faced similar challenges. Former President Jimmy Carter demonstrated an embarrassing helplessness after "student" rebels broke into the US Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979, and took 52 diplomats hostage. Similar pictures came out of former President Obama's handling of the Benghazi crisis, which took place on Sept. 12, 2012, when forces aligned with an al-Qaida affiliate began firing mortars at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which claimed the life of US ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and the lives of three other American officials.
Obama's response to the attack was no less laughable than Carter's conduct during the Iran hostage crisis. He tried to pay down the event and sell it as a spontaneous act in a demonstration that got out of control, rather than a planned terrorist attack.
Unlike Carter and Obama, on Trump's watch, there is no acceptance in the face of a challenge. When it became clear to the White House that Soleimani was personally directing the Shiite militias that perpetrated the attack in northern Iraq that claimed the life of an American contractor last week, and recently besieged the American embassy in Baghdad for a few days now, his fate was sealed.
Trump has created an equation designed to differentiate himself from his predecessors, while clearing away some of the ambiguity from the war against the axis of terrorism. This thwarted attempts by the chief "architect of terrorism" to hide behind a wall of indirect responsibility for the attacks he initiated and led.
This begs the question of whether the silent, but violent, negotiation between Washington and Tehran will prompt the Iranian leadership – which is also dealing with the fallout from increasingly severe US sanctions – to a breaking point that will cause it to rethink its path, or merely increase its determination to adhere to a path of subversion and violence, no matter the cost.
Another question that the president hasn't answered in detail is whether the Trump Doctrine will apply to Iranian provocations that refrain from directly attacking US targets but take aim at US partners, especially when it comes to the Persian Gulf and freedom of movement for vessels there.
In the future, will the severe punishment entailed in the Trump doctrine be applied to provocations like these, too?
