This is why the Pentagon had the amendment against offensive action in Iran stricken from the Defense Authorization Act. If the language had not be removed Trump would have been forced come to Congress and make a case presenting evidence to get approval. Facts would be necessary. No, not even this congress would have approved something as general as, "it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans..." You would have to prove that you were in imminent danger. Assassinating a government official because of the possibility of an embassy being vandalized again does not look like self-defense, it looks like a punitive action, and a reckless one because of the scale of our response in relationship to what happened, and also because it is based on conjecture that these were the operatives behind past attacks-- we believe, and assuming they were then they could have been plotting a future riot together.
Well lets break this down, because time would have been a factor Trump would have had to have gone to the Gang of 8 for authorization, a full deliberation of Congress would have been useless as not only would it be sharing classified material openly, but time being the issue, and Congress moving at a snail's pace, would not be able to accomplish authorization in the required time. The intelligence Gang of 8 consists of.
United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Adam Schiff (D-CA-28), Chair
Devin Nunes (R-CA-22), Ranking Member
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Richard Burr (R-NC), Chair
Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair
Leadership in the United States House of Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12), Speaker of the House
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-23), Minority Leader
Leadership in the United States Senate:
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader
4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, David Nunes, Richard Burr, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell have shown support for the attack on twitter, that leaves the 4 Democrats being the only ones who could have opposed this. 4 Democrats, opposing the killing of the leader of Kata'lb Hizballah, who had just attacked the embassy, and a man responsible for the killings of 500 to 600 Americans.
Yeah, I am sorry but there is no way that those 4 top Democrats are going to take responsibility, in an election year, to not stop these two people if presented the opportunity. Especially since such a meeting between the general and Kata'lb Hizballah, could very well result in another embassy attack or deaths of US personnel.
It would be Benghazi 2.0 right before the 2020 election.
Now when you say the general is a "plotter" and a "terrorist" are you are referring to Soleimani being the head IRGC/ the external wing Qudz? If this is what you are talking about I want to make sure you understand that IRGC is a part of the military structure in Iran's political system, and has been for 40 years. It is similar to a combination of the CIA and US Special forces. Soleimani's position would parallel to a defense secretary here in the United States.
I am fully aware of his position.
In fact the United States worked with Soleimani and his very militia previously against the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, he was actually an opponent of Isis and is credited with keeping them from taking over Iran.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...nited-states-qasem-soleimani-worked-together/
That is great, but lets not bury what kind of mass murderer this man was.
He planned a strike on US soil, that would have killed US civilians, along with the Saudi Ambassador in 2011.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/hist...i-ambassador-dc-case-reads-like-spy-thriller/
He instructed his militia leaders in Iraq to step up their attacks on U.S. targets in Iraq using weapons provided by Iran.
Two weeks before he moved rockets that could target helicopters into Iraq.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ani-to-attack-us-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z
He is responsible for the building and shipping of IED and other weapons into Iraq to destabilize the country and fuel a civil war that targeted US troops between 2005 to 2007 which claimed the lives of over 600 US troops and injured thousands more.
He also allegedly had direct planning, financing, and directing of the 2012 terror attack against the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/inside-the-twisted-terrible-reign-of-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani/
This is not to say that Soleimani was not an oppressive figure or that I supported him or that there aren't serious internal problems within Iran and their military, I think the same could be said of the United States and our government, that doesn't mean if someone were to go to assassinate officials from our department of defense it would be justifiable or wise.
If for two decades the US had been leading attacks in a undeclared war against a country and it's personnel, killing hundreds of it's troops and civilians, and targeting its embassies, along with planning an attack on it's home soil. Would you not expect that country to consider the man who planned and led those operations to be a target for attack?
The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group is quite new. Trump controversially labelled the country's own military terrorists just back in spring, and it is yet another link in a long chain of aggressive actions the United States has been taking since Trump got in office to isolate and antagonize Iran, and destabilize the peace in the region we had obtained under the Obama administration, and it undermines the narrative that the United States wants to de-escalate and is just defending themselves but they keeping getting attacked randomly by Iran.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ionary-guards-a-terrorist-group-idUSKCN1RR1BE
While IRGC may be new to it's designation as a terrorist group, Qassem Suleimani is not, he was on the terror list during the Obama Administration.
https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani
Peace? Peace? Are you serious?
Again I point out that this man was shipping weapons into Iraq as recently as October and telling the militias there to step up the targets and attacks.
Lets look at this "peace" we achieved under Obama with Iran, we already covered the Benghazi attacks and the planned bombing on U.S. soil.
We have the capture of US soldiers on January 12, 2016 which resulted in release of pictures of them bound, a direct violation of the Geneva convention.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/irans-photographs-navy-sailors-war-crime-or-just-outrage
Iran through its use of Hezbollah was responsible for shipping countless number of drugs into Europe and America, the money of which was used to further finance terror operations.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/
They engaged in various acts of cyber espionage targeting the state department and various other civilian targets.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/...respionage-state-department-social-media.html
I could go on and on, but I think it is rather clear that Iran, despite the nuclear accord, was still willing to act in a non peaceful manner, in attempts to humiliate and hurt the U.S.