This month, huge protests, a  missile retaliation, a mistakenly downed plane and thousands of World War III cries followed the killing of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani. 

The conflict is the bubbling result of years of U.S.-Iran tensions, accelerated by President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Nuclear Agreement in 2018 and spiked by recent strikes between the countries.

Here to help sort through the madness is Nicholas Grossman, professor in LAS with a concentration in international relations and author of “Drones and Terrorism: Asymmetric Warfare and the Threat to Global Security.”

On Jan. 3, the U.S. killed Qasem Soleimani, major general of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and commander of its secretive, extraterritorial Quds Force, along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, commander of the Iraqi militia, Kata’ib Hezbollah.

The Pentagon blamed the Quds Force for attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and for downing a $130 million U.S. drone in June. Tensions increased with the December death of a U.S. contractor — likely by the rocket of Iran-backed Kata’ib Hezbollah — and an attempt by pro-Iranian demonstrators to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.  

In response to the death of its contractor, the U.S. struck bases in Iraq and Syria linked to Kata’ib, killing at least 25 people. 

After Soleimani’s death, thousands of Iranians attended his funeral, creating the image of national unity. Iran retaliated with a missile launch on a U.S. base in Iraq, which caused several concussions, though no casualties were reported. 

That national perception flipped a week later after Iran shot down a Ukranian passenger plane, killing all 176 onboard. Thousands of Iranians marched in a vigil last weekend for the fallen passengers. 

After days of denial, Iran admitted to shooting down the plane by mistake. For Grossman, it’s a grim reminder of the cost of human error. 

“It’s very easy for people to forget there are actual human beings making these decisions, sometimes human beings who aren’t all that well informed, certainly all that senior,” Grossman said.  

Drone warfare

Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani was the first state leader to be killed by drone. He was also the first foreign military leader killed by the United States since a Japanese admiral in World War II. 

“The drone part of this is not that important,” Grossman said. “It’s a drone because that’s the main method the United States uses to kill individuals. The same missile could’ve been fired from alternative platforms.” 

Still, drones change the landscape of warfare tremendously. For one, drones aren’t subject to human impulses of hunger, sleep or nerves that plague human soldiers. 

Grossman noted that drones further insulate the American people from the true costs of war since all the violence and damage is detached from human loss. 

“You don’t get the same political cost as say, troops coming home in body bags. That led to political opposition with Vietnam, with Afghanistan,” Grossman said. 

Questions of imminence, legality

At a June 9 rally in Ohio, Trump claimed Soleimani was “actively planning new attacks” on U.S. forces. He later said “it probably would’ve been four embassies” on Fox News.

If an imminent threat existed, killing Soleimani could be legally justified under the 1973 War Powers Act. However, zero embassies nor White House officials have backed this claim of imminence with evidence.

The fact that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper saw nothing “in regard to four embassies” is especially damning, since Esper would’ve received the same intelligence briefings as the President. 

According to Grossman, framing the killing of Soleimani as getting rid of a “bad guy” would’ve been a “winner” legally and politically for the Trump administration. Additionally, he was killed in Iraq, which is an active theater of war.   

“Just saying, ‘This man has a lot of American blood on his hands; he was involved in two attacks on American targets in the last week, we are confident that he is plotting more in the future,’ Grossman said.They should’ve just said that and it would’ve been fine,”

Ultimately, it’s unlikely that these legal questions will change any actions of the U.S. government toward Iran. Soleimani’s repeated line-crossings struck a nerve for the U.S., coming to a boil in late December.

“Soleimani had generally been walking around like he was untouchable,” Grossman said. “Like he could sort of do this stuff with free reign,” “It’s still pretty amazing to me that after pulling this embassy move and after seeing the U.S. lash out so much when Kata’ib Hezbollah killed the contractor, that the leader of Kata’ib Hezbollah and the leader of Iran’s Quds Force are just traveling in a convoy together near the airport. It’s unbelievably sloppy.” 

Impeachment and the future

The theory that Trump ordered the strike on Soleimani to distract from impeachment has been floated by several political figures, presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren among them. Grossman isn’t buying it. 

“If all he wanted to do was distract from impeachment, the time to do it would’ve been while the trial was going on in the Senate, not during the downtime around the holidays,” Grossman said.

If war occurs, it would disrupt oil markets, spike gas prices and create an economic drag domestically. American military families are already affected, as the U.S. strengthened its troop presence in the Middle East after the embassy attack. Yet the plane disaster has largely dulled any fears of war. 

As for the World War III buzz, there was never much possibility. Grossman said there was a “paranoia” that superpowers Russia and China would side with Iran, but the risks far outweighed any incentive. 

“The idea that Russia would risk getting  St. Petersburg or Moscow nuked over Iran?” Grossman said. “Come on. The Chinese are prepared to sacrifice Beijing or Shanghai if this escalates? At worst it may have been a little help here and there to the Iranians just enough to deny any involvement whatsoever.”

To track the progress of the conflict, Grossman said nuclear advancements by Iran may cause tensions with the other parties of the deal. The upcoming U.S. presidential election also bears significant weight in negotiations, as “any Democrat is going to give Iran a better deal,” Grossman said. 

“All the issues that cause the U.S. and Iran to have tensions are all still there. None of them have been resolved at all,” Grossman said. “Part of the problem in regards to U.S. strategy over Iran is that it’s not clear what America wants.”

[email protected]