By Charles Pena
Last week, President Trump ordered an airstrike at Baghdad's international airport that killed Iran's top general, Qassem Soleimani. Soleimani was a member of the Revolutionary Guard and the commander of Iran's Quds force. Iran vowed retaliation and, predictably, they launched a ballistic missile attack against U.S. bases at Al-Asad and Irbil in Iraq (fortunately, there are no reported casualties).
The president has previously claimed that killing Soleimani was to "stop a war." Despite President Trump declining to retaliate after Iran launched missiles at U.S. targets in Iraq this week, there's no guarantee we're out of an escalatory spiral to war with Iran. Such a war would not only be unwise but unnecessary.
Justifying his decision to kill Soleimani, President Trump invoked that his "most solemn duty is the defense of our nation." Soleimani was no saint, but the reality is that neither he nor the regime in Tehran represents a direct threat to U.S. national security.
First and foremost, while Iran has ballistic missiles with the range to strike targets in the Middle East and parts of Europe, the Islamic Republic has no missiles with the intercontinental-range to strike the U.S. homeland. Iran's conventional military forces pale in comparison to the U.S. military.
Yes, they have military capability that can be used against U.S. forces in the region — as Iran recently demonstrated. But they do not have power projection capability to attack America.
This piece was originally published in The Hill on January 13, 2020. Read more HERE.