Assassination of Qasem Soleimani: Legal and Ethical Considerations

Recently, the death of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds Force, has sparked considerable debate regarding the legality and ethics of his killing. Some argue that his assassination violated international and US law. Here, we delve into the legal and ethical aspects of his death and provide a nuanced understanding of the situation.

Legal Proceedings and International Law

The United States claims that the assassination of Qasem Soleimani was conducted in accordance with US law and international norms. This assertion is based on a legal framework dating back to the USA PATRIOT Act, which authorizes the use of force against individuals deemed to be terrorists or part of terrorist organizations. Gen. Soleimani was designated as such and was under UN sanctions, providing a legal basis for his extrajudicial killing.

However, assassinations of foreign government officials are prohibited under international law, especially if the countries in question are not formally at war. In this case, the United States and Iran have not declared war, making the situation legally and diplomatically complex. The International Criminal Court (ICC) could potentially hold President Trump accountable for ordering the assassination, but the US and Iran are not parties to the relevant ICC treaties. Therefore, Trump's legal vulnerability under the ICC is minimal.

Security and Diplomatic Implications

The assassination of Gen. Soleimani has significant security and diplomatic implications. It has led to retaliatory actions by Iran, including launching missiles at US targets in Iraq. These actions underscore the importance of maintaining diplomatic protocols and avoiding the targeting of high-ranking officials, as it may spark further escalations.

Historically, diplomats and high-ranking officials are considered a diplomatic tool, and their safety and protection are paramount to maintaining peace. Carl von Clausewitz, a renowned military strategist, stated that 'War is the continuation of politics by other means,' implying that any action taken should have a strategic and political purpose rather than being driven by sheer violence and retribution.

Covert Operations and Ethical Considerations

A critique of the current method used to eliminate Gen. Soleimani is that it was overly visible and left little doubt about the perpetrator. A covert operation would have been more ethical and less likely to provoke a violent response. Such operations would deny the US the opportunity to conduct high-profile press conferences, which might exploit the situation for political gain. The transparent nature of the operation might also heighten the risk of similar high-profile attacks in the future.

Covert operations align better with the unwritten rule of diplomacy: to avoid targeting officials of the opposing side. This approach is crucial in preventing a downward spiral into full-scale conflict. By conducting a covert operation, the US would have maintained a higher degree of ambiguity and control over the outcome, potentially reducing the risk of retaliatory actions by Iran.

Conclusion

The assassination of Qasem Soleimani is a complex issue with both legal and ethical dimensions. While the US has provided a legal basis for the killing, the broader impacts on international relations and security remain troubling. The method used in the assassination also raises questions about the ethical implications of such actions and the need for more strategic and covert approaches in the future.

Going forward, it is essential to consider the long-term consequences of such actions and to uphold diplomatic norms and protocols to avoid further escalations. Through a more nuanced understanding of the legal and ethical frameworks, the international community can work towards maintaining peace and stability in a volatile region.

References

USA PATRIOT Act International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty Carl von Clausewitz, "On War"