The year 2020 started off with the all-to-familiar escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States. On January 3rd, an American drone strike killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Soleimani was the leader of Iran’s foreign military division and essentially the second most powerful person in Iran. Al-Muhandis was the deputy leader of an Iranian-backed military force within Iraq. As the leader of what is known as the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Soleimani has a long list of deadly attacks attributed to him. The IRGC was recently designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization for its role in supporting terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. The drone strike immediately escalated the simmering U.S.-Iranian feud to its highest point in recent history. This week, we’ll investigate the implications of this strike to see if the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks.

First, why is everyone freaking out about this particular attack?

• It is almost certain Iran will retaliate in a meaningful way as they have done with previous strikes.

• The attack happened near Baghdad International Airport in Iraq without the consent of the Iraqi government and after they explicitly asked the U.S. to not target Iranians in their country. (For context, think of how mad Americans would be if Canada bombed someone at JFK airport.)

• America has been taking out terrorist leaders via drones for awhile, but this person was high up in the Iranian government so it's a huge change from previous strikes which targeted people unaffiliated with a country. (Basically, it's like if Iran killed Secretary of Defense Mark Esper).

• From Iran’s perspective, this could plausibly be seen as an act of war, rather than simply a retaliation for previous attacks.

So is this a good or bad development?

That's a tough question to answer because it depends on what we are looking at. On the one hand, Soleimani certainly isn't innocent in the troubles which currently plague the region. In fact, he and the IRGC have been responsible for terrorism, instability, and the deaths of American solders and civilians for decades. The administration set a clear red line that the death of an American would warrant a significant response. That red line was violated during a recent attack at an American base in Iraq which resulted in the death of an American security contractor.

The impact of these deaths on the Iranian operations is tough to measure. These top positions have already been filled by other leaders and the overall military structure remains in place.  But Soleimani was a very competent and charismatic leader. He was well adapted to managing the large variety of proxy groups and operations that the IRGC oversees. Time will tell if his replacement is as competent, but it's not likely this will change the IRGC mission or stop many upcoming attacks.

But on the other hand, it appears that the U.S. didn't get Iraqi permission to launch the assault. Why is this important? Because it makes Iraq look weak and like it is helplessly caught in the middle of two stronger powers. This isn't a good message to send to the same government that America needs to work with and whose permission it needs in order to stay. Both Iraqi and Iranian sentiment in favor of the United States seems to have turned for the worse following this attack. There was a window of opportunity to pressure Iran after recent demonstrations against the government,  but the attack seems to have helped turn some of Iran's public back in favor of the government.

Ultimately, despite claims that this action will somehow lead to peace, it is far more likely to dramatically escalate the fight. Unlike conflicts against rogue terrorist groups, Iran actually has a full military and nation-state resources.  They can and will retaliate in substantial ways that can impact Americans. Anyone traveling abroad in the region is in increased danger, while Americans here at home will have to cope with higher energy prices and the possibility of Iranian cyber attacks.

While the deaths of Soleimani and al-Muhandis send a clear message, it probably won't change the overall situation. Both sides are choosing actions which essentially force the other side to act aggressively. Nobody is offering a real off-ramp to violence, but still expects the other side to blink first. Iran won’t back down because their government and lives are on the line here. Their national identity is built in part on opposition to perceived American aggression, so they lose legitimacy by bowing to American demands. On the American side, everyone knows the U.S. doesn't want another war. Because of this, the situation likely won't fundamentally change. They will continue to stop just short of war, while keeping tensions high and launching sporadic attacks. 

Unfortunately, the biggest loser here is probably Iraq. Iraq has been dealing with American occupation, unstable politics, and Iranian backed militias inside the country for nearly two decades. They are caught in the middle and are having a hard time trusting anyone. Just a few days after the strike, the Iraqi parliament voted to remove U.S. troops from the country entirely. If this is followed up with definitive action, it would mean the complete end of any meaningful combat missions in Iraq. This is certainly been a desire of the United States for a long time, but at what cost? After almost seventeen years, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and trillions of dollars, the U.S. looks poised to leave Iraq with an unfriendly government and few if any allies left. This isn’t all due to the strike on Soleimani of course, but it appears this strike may be the last straw for a beleaguered Iraq who feels increasingly pushed around by American actions that don’t serve Iraqi interests. Ultimately, the question isn't if taking out Soleimani was a good thing or a bad thing, the question is: Was it worth it?