The Global War on Terror has considerably shaped international relations and the geopolitical landscape, specifically in the Middle East region. This paper explores the US role in the Global War on Terror, particularly in the assassination of Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani. It examines the bilateral relations between the USA and Iran, the motivations for Soleimani’s assassination and the implications of such actions. The research also highlights the strategic and legal controversies surrounding Soleimani’s assassination and the resulting geopolitical consequences.

Introduction

Terrorism is subjective as one man’s terrorist could be another man’s freedom fighter. Therefore, there’s no universally accepted definition for the same. The most widely accepted definition is the use of violence to create fear (i.e., terror, psychic fear) for (1) political, (2) religious, or (3) ideological reasons (ideologies are systems of belief derived from worldviews that frame human social and political conditions). The terror is intentionally aimed at noncombatant targets (i.e., civilians or iconic symbols), and the objective is to achieve the greatest attainable publicity for a group, cause, or individual.1 (Matusitz, 2013,pp-4)

The War on Terror was waged as a response to the 9/11 events, but the war itself has a history before it, which is rooted in the post-Cold War Era of Globalisation. Following the 9/11 events, even culture (Islam) played a big role in making sense of the terrorist attacks as a sense of Islamophobia emerged which drew USA’s keen attention to the Middle East region. The War on Terror like every war is framed as defensive and necessary to ignore the USA’s imperial violence contribution to global and US inequality. Additionally, the War on Terror uses mourning and melancholy to justify its defence on grounds of national formation which is not so.

Law has been strategically used to rationalise the use of torture to extract information under the shield of War on Terror. This torture program was justified as lawful for the USA’s understanding of being respectful of the Rule of Law. In the words of Lupin, the torture program defined every man captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan as enemy combatants unworthy of any national or international legal protection. 2(Lupin,2021)

The Obama presidential administration to uphold the Rule of Law deviated from using torture and confinement to an extrajudicial assassination program against the targeting of US citizens. Therefore, the drone program drove some, mostly from the Middle East region, to join terrorist organisations that target the USA. Thus this became a subject of resistance and rebellion against the War on Terror.

Research Questions

• What is the Global War on Terror?
• How have the US-Iran relations evolved since the Iranian Revolution?
• Why was General Soleimani assassinated?
• What are the implications of the USA’s actions?

Literature Review

This article aims to analyse how the War on Terror is different from history’s conventional conflicts as it pitted a state against “terrorist groups,” a term not clearly defined under international law. Many terrorist groups in the Middle East, including the Mujahedeen and later the Taliban, were originally supported by the U.S. during the Cold War to counter Soviet influence in the region. (Lee,2023) It explores how USA and Iran have not had diplomatic relations since 1980, following the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. Although, bilateral relations briefly improved during the late 1990s tensions rose again in the early 2000s amid reports of Iran’s armed support for Palestinian groups and the revelation of previously undisclosed nuclear facilities in Iran. (CRS Report,2023) This article aims to analyse the reason behind Soleimani’s assassination. It talks about how in the 21st century, Soleimani and his proxy network rose to power and became a threat to the USA’s interests and allies. This, therefore, became one of the tangible reasons for his assassination. The USA assassinated a legitimate statesman in the territory of another state thus blatantly disrespecting another state’s sovereignty and undermining one of the basic tenets of international law. (Binkaya,2020) This act by the USA is deemed illegal under international law, at least in terms of how it complies with the rules of jus contra bellum, the law that forbids war. (Kelemen, B. K., & Kiss, M., 2022) This article therefore emphasises on the legality of such actions and tries to establish a link between the said actions and the USA’s interests.

Global War on Terror

Two decades have passed since the tragic events of 11 September 2001 that took the lives of approximately 2996 people and injured over 6000 people through the hijacked airliners that struck the World Trade Centre in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. The United States had attributed these attacks to the Islamic fundamentalist group Al-Qaeda which was led by Osama Bin Laden. In December 2001, the US initiated military actions in Afghanistan and invaded Iraq in March 2003 believing it to be the strongholds of Osama Bin Laden. These interventions under the “War On Terror “ have spanned through the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations and concluded with Biden’s complete withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021.3(Lee,2023)

“The war was characterized by a series of military interventions, covert operations, and diplomatic efforts to disrupt and dismantle terrorist networks worldwide. The GWOT was led by the United States, with participation from a coalition of countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and others. The campaign began with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, followed by the occupation of Iraq in March 2003. The US military launched a series of targeted killings, raids, and drone strikes against suspected terrorist targets in both countries. 4(Oxford University Press, 2015) The US also established a network of detention centres and interrogation facilities to hold, and question captured terrorists. The GWOT expanded to other regions, including Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, where US military and intelligence agencies conducted operations against al-Qaeda affiliates and other terrorist groups. The US also launched a program of targeted killings using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) to eliminate high-ranking terrorist leaders. The GWOT was marked by controversy over the use of torture, rendition, and detention without trial at Guantanamo Bay prison camp. Human rights organizations and critics argued that these practices violated international law and constituted human rights abuses. 5(Routledge, 2019)”
During the Cold War era, the USA was politically or economically involved in the Middle East but in the post-Cold War era, it evolved into full-scale armed interventions that are represented by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the initial phase, the US achieved military victories over Afghanistan’s Taliban and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein’s regime which were accused of supporting terrorism. However, these victories were unsuccessful in eradicating terrorist groups due to the political and religious landscape of the Middle East involving the conflicting regional interests of major powers like France and Russia. Therefore, subsequent US administrations had to tackle prolonged political and military challenges in the region for about two decades without a clear solution. (Lee, 2023)

The “War on Terror” differs from conventional conflicts in history as it pitted a state against “terrorist groups,” a term not clearly defined under international law.6(O’Connell, M. E.,2004) Ironically, terrorist groups like the Mujahedeen and the Taliban, were originally supported by the U.S. during the Cold War to counter Soviet influence in the Middle East region.7(Rubin,2002) These groups later became formidable opponents in the War on Terror. The global community has critically condemned the War on Terror as lacking just cause and international legal legitimacy.8(Cassese,2001).

USA-Iran Relations

U.S.-Iran have had adverse relations since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which led to the deposition of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a close U.S. ally, ultimately leading to the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The United States and Iran have not had diplomatic relations since 1980, following the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis. 9(Bowden,2007)

U.S.-Iran tensions continued in the following decade, punctuated by armed confrontations in the Gulf and Iran-backed terrorist attacks (including the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut). U.S. sanctions, first imposed in 1979, continued apace with the U.S. government designating Iran as a state sponsor of acts of international terrorism in 1984, an embargo on U.S. trade with and investment in Iran in 1995, and the first imposition of secondary sanctions (U.S. penalties against firms that invest in Iran’s energy sector) in 1996. 10(CRS Report,2023)

The relations between the countries improved briefly in the late 1990s, but tensions rose again due to reports of Iran’s armed support for Palestinian groups and the discovery of previously undisclosed nuclear facilities in Iran in the early 2000s. 11(Ghazvinian,2020)

“The United States and Iran have had a complex and often tumultuous relationship since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Before the revolution, the two countries had a strong alliance, with the US providing significant economic and military aid to Iran. However, following the revolution, Iran became a theocratic state with a strong anti-Western orientation, and the relationship between the two countries deteriorated rapidly. In the early 1980s, the US supported Iraq in its war against Iran, which led to a significant deterioration in US-Iran relations. The US also imposed economic sanctions on Iran, which were intended to isolate and punish the country for its alleged support of terrorism. In the 1990s, the US and Iran engaged in limited diplomatic contact, but tensions remained high due to issues such as Iran’s nuclear program and its support for terrorism. In 2002, the US listed Iran as a “rogue state” and accused it of developing weapons of mass destruction. In 2008, the US imposed new sanctions on Iran, including a ban on all transactions with Iranian banks. The sanctions were tightened further in 2012, with the passage of the National Defence Authorization Act. In 2013, Hassan Rouhani was elected President of Iran, and he has since pursued a more moderate foreign policy. 12(Routledge, 2014)”

The United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program out of fear that it could lead to nuclear weapons development. Subsequently, the Obama Administration acknowledged these concerns by maintaining economic pressure through sanctions and diplomatic engagement.13(Statement by the President on Iran, 2015) This engagement resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) , a multilateral nuclear agreement in 2015 that placed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities in trade for respite from most economic sanctions.

President Trump announced on May 8, 2018, that the United States would cease participating in the JCPOA, reinstating all sanctions that the United States had waived or terminated in meeting its JCPOA obligations. In articulating a new Iran strategy in May 2018, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that due to “unprecedented financial pressure” through reimposed U.S. sanctions, U.S. military deterrence, and U.S. advocacy, “we hope, and indeed we expect, that the Iranian regime will come to its senses.” He also laid out 12 demands for any future agreement with Iran, including the withdrawal of Iranian support for armed groups throughout the region. Iran’s leaders rejected U.S. demands and insisted the United States return to compliance with the JCPOA before engaging in a new or revised accord. (CRS Report, 2023)

The Trump Organization applied the approach of ‘greatest tension’ on Iran as extra authorisation and restricted military activity after late 2018. Beginning in the middle of 2019, Iran intensified its regional military operations, occasionally engaging in direct military conflict with the United States. Tensions rose after several Iranian attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf and a drone attack on oil production facilities in Saudi Arabia in September 2019. The assassination of IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani on January 3, 2020, in Baghdad, as well as Iran’s vengeful ballistic missile strikes against U.S. forces in Iraq and attacks by Iran-backed forces in Iraq against U.S. targets, heightened these tensions. 14(CRS Report, 2020) Iran also began exceeding JCPOA-mandated limits on its nuclear activities in 2019, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Assassination of Qassem Soleimani

Centre East’s legislative issues took an uncommon turn in the start of 2020 with the death of Qassem Soleimani, the head of Quds Power (a strong unit of Islamic Progressive Watchmen Corps: IRGC ) in Baghdad Worldwide Air terminal by an American airstrike.
“Soleimani was politically influential in the Middle East region. He was a brave and charismatic supreme commander of the Iranian people for some and a terrorist responsible for several killings of Americans and local civilians for others. That being said, he was officially the commander of the Quds force since 1998 and was responsible for directing and overseeing Iranian military activities. He first came to prominence during the 1980s Iraq-Iran war and subsequently became an integral part of Iranian national security, state survival, and national interest. He strategically increased Iran’s influence in the Middle East through his policymaking skills and by conducting operations during the power struggles against major actors like the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia in the region. Soleimani maintained strong ties with proxy forces including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Al-Assad’s forces in Syria and Shi’a militia groups in Iraq to use the anarchial structure in the Middle East to benefit Iran’s Expansionist Policy and increase his importance for the state. This allowed the Quds force under his leadership to expand its military, financial and political capabilities in Iran and abroad, effectively impacting Iraq’s domestic and international policies post Saddam Hussein’s removal via paramilitary forces of Iraqi Shi’a population.” (Binkaya,2020)

His position as one of the most fundamental figures in the proxy war against the US and its allies in Iraq was the most tangible reason for his assassination. In this respect, his death caused lament and celebrations, raised questions and uncovered rivalries, for in the eyes of some people he represented the most destructive elements of Iranian expansionist policy in the Middle East. 15(Binkaya,2020, pp-160)

The goal of the operation was to shift the balance of power in favour of the United States and its proxies. “International politics, like all politics, is a power struggle,” according to Hans Morgenthau. Power is always the immediate goal of international politics, regardless of the ultimate objectives” 16(Morgenthau, 1960, pp. 29). In light of this, the US utilized hard power apparatuses to accomplish security and strength, by taking this unsafe activity to dispose of the danger to its public interest, powers in the area and nearby regular citizens made by Soleimani’s political impact and Iranian command over the organization of intermediaries in the continuous battle for predominance in the locale. As a result, the order from the president to kill Soleimani was meant to help the goals of American domestic policy by preserving the United States’ dominant position in the Middle East through its military and intelligence capabilities.

Implications and Aftermath of Assassinating General Soleimani

There were 3 risks associated with the said assassination according to Binkaya, they were:

“Iran has no intercontinental nuclear capacity, the other parts of the region where proxy wars are ongoing are now at risk due to the escalated tension between Iran and the USA.” “Another risk factor comes from the fact that by killing Soleimani, the US violated the territory of another state and assassinated a legitimate statesman, thus blatantly disrespecting another state’s sovereignty and undermining one of the basic tenets of international law.”

“The third source of risk is disruption of the precarious balance in the Middle East. Soleimani was crucial to Iran’s relations with its proxy forces, in particular with Hezbollah, Hamas and Shi’a groups in Iraq.” (Binkaya,2020,pp-162)

America has justified the said action taken under Trump’s administration by citing ARTICLE 51 highlighting that they assassinated Soleimani as a part of anticipatory self-defense against cumulation of provocative actions by Iran. Although the United States suffered no armed attacks at all between the summer of 2019 and the end of December 2019 the incidents that happened were less serious forms of the use of force.

Moreover, the last attack on the US, which was carried out against the US embassy in Baghdad, is incapable of activating the right of self-defence, so that, regardless of the intensity and consequences of the attack, the US could not claim that it was an armed attack.17( Balázs and Kajtár ,2021, pp-863–88) 18(Kelemen, B. K., & Kiss, M. , 2022)

Donald Trump said in a White House question and answer session following the death of General Soleimani that he was the main psychological militant anyplace on the planet and had arranged ‘up and coming and evil assaults’ against the US, which took this USA’s action fundamental. 19(President Trump’s Explanation on Death of Iranian Authority, 2020) Mike Pompeo, previous US Secretary of State, later said that ‘we don’t know exactly when, and we don’t know definitively where, however, it was genuine’, alluding to the ‘inescapable’ dangers referenced by Trump. 20(Forgey,2020) The Pentagon’s statement that “the strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans” further establishes the United States’ intentions. 21(Kirby, 2011) As a result, the United States justified its claim of self-defence based on an anticipatory self-defence strategy.

After a very long time, the United States began using targeted killing again against a military leader of another state rather than a suspected terrorist, thus linked to non-state actors, in the targeted assassination of General Soleimani. This operation, on the other hand, was unable to overcome the flaws of such conduct, and as a result, it is deemed illegal under international law, at least in terms of how it complies with the rules of jus contra bellum, the law that forbids war. (Kelemen, B. K., & Kiss, M., 2022)

The targeted killing of General Soleimani was carried out in the exercise of the US right of self-defence, but the US was unwilling or unable to name a specific armed attack that would have entitled it to use self-defence against Iran. Instead, the United States first invoked an anticipatory version of self-defence, in which the location and timing of the attacks planned by General Soleimani were unknown. Although the US has been pursuing this concept for many years as part of its targeted killing programme, the overwhelming majority of the international community and international legal scholars do not consider such military operations to be lawful. (Kelemen, B. K., & Kiss, M., 2022)

Furthermore, such practices by the states can prompt different states to utilise an anarchial limitless variant of self-protection which can likewise be seen in the continuous illustration of Russian hostility against Ukraine where a type of expectant self-preservation contention is being utilized.
Therefore, the United States adhered to the principle of the theory of accumulation of events in its letter to the Security Council to avoid hints of illegality or other reasons. Because the attacks on the United States could be combined into a large-scale armed attack, this idea was used to support the self-defence claim. (Kelemen, B. K., & Kiss, M., 2022)

Agnès Callamard, in her report on the assault, brings up that the reason for the tactical activity seemed like discouragement as the US killed the General without referencing Soleimani’s compromising activities appropriately which he wanted to commit since the episodes explicitly named by the US had all finished. 22(Callamard,2020).

Conclusion

How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism? 23 (Howard Zinn) International terrorism rose to its peak with the 9/11 attack on the hegemonic USA. Therefore, the USA launched a global military campaign namely Global War on Terror to eradicate the newly emerged threat to its national security. To prove its mettle and in the name of national security, the USA also reverted in full strength and assassinated Osama bin Laden and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The GWOT has involved a series of military interventions, covert operations, and diplomatic efforts aimed at disrupting and dismantling terrorist networks. Hence, it profoundly influenced international relations and reshaped geopolitical dynamics, especially in the Middle East.

The most consequential action of GWOT in the Middle East was the assassination of General Soleimani, a pivotal figure and QUDS Force commander, who directed Iranian military activities and maintained Iran’s network of proxies. His assassination aimed to assert American dominance in the region and to protect USA’s interests and allies. The USA justified his assassination as a necessary self-defence measure against imminent threats posed by Soleimani. However, this action resulted in legal and ethical questions regarding sovereignty, use of force and international law for the USA.

The US and Iran had a strained relationship since the 1979 Iranian Revolution but the assassination of General Soleimani escalated these tensions in an already volatile region. Mutual hostility, occasional armed confrontations and sanctions characterized their relationship. Also, issues like Iran’s nuclear program and support for proxies have strained the diplomatic engagement between the two.

Soleimani’s assassination highlighted the strategic use of targeted killing in modern warfare. It not only escalated tensions in the region but also violated Iraqi sovereignty and challenged international law norms. It highlighted how to navigate through the intricate web of legal norms and international relations to combat terrorism for the USA. However, the question arises whether Soleimani’s assassination itself could have prevented the attacks and threats on the USA or not!? To answer that, it can be clearly said that that’s not the case as the Iranian proxies are still active and are a threat to the USA.

To conclude, the killing of General Qassem Soleimani serves as an example of the intricate and frequently contentious character of the War on Terror. It draws attention to the persistent difficulties in US-Iranian relations and emphasizes the wider geopolitical ramifications of unilateral military action. The aftermath of events like Soleimani’s assassination and the legacy of the GWOT will continue to shape regional dynamics and international relations for years to come as the US navigates its role in the Middle East.

Title image courtesy: https://www.hoover.org/

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of India and Defence Research and Studies

References

1. Matusitz, J. (2013). Terrorism and Communication. (L. S. Matthew Byrnie, Ed.) SAGE.
2. Lubin, A. (2021). Never-ending war on terror. University of California Press.
3. The global war on terror:Lee, E. Y. J. (2023). Rethinking Twenty Years of American Unilateralism in the Middle East: A Critical Evaluation of the War on Terror. In Revolutionary Approach to International Law: The Role of International Lawyer in Asia (pp. 101-120). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
4. Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction, Charles Townshend, Oxford University Press, 2015 
5. Routledge, (2019) : The War on Terror: A Historical Perspective, John E. Owens
6. O’Connell, M. E. (2004). The legal case against the global war on terror. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 36, 349-357.
7. Rubin, M. (2002). Who is responsible for the Taliban. Middle East review of international affairs, 6(1), 1-16.
8. Cassese, A. (2001). Terrorism is also disrupting some crucial legal categories of international law. European Journal of International Law, 12, 993.
9. US-Iran Relations:Bowden, M. (2007). Guests of the Ayatollah: The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in America’s War with Militant Islam. Open Road+ Grove/Atlantic.
10. Congressional Research Service. (2023, September 17). Iran: Background and U.S. policy. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47321/6
11. Ghazvinian, J. (2020). America and Iran: A history, 1720 to the present. Simon and Schuster.
12. Routledge, (2014) “Iran’s Nuclear Program: A Critical Analysis” by Gary Sick
13. Statement by the President on Iran. (2015, July 16). whitehouse.gov. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/14/statement-president-iran
14. Thomas, C. (2020). US Killing of Qasem Soleimani: Frequently Asked Questions. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46148 Assassination of Qassem Soleimani:
15. Binkaya, A. B. (2020). Causes and effects of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani: A political perspective. The Copernicus Journal of Political Studies, (1), 159-166 .https://doi.org/10.12775/CJPS.2020.009
16. Morgenthau, H. (1960). Politics Among Nations : The Struggle for Power and Peace. Implications and Aftermath of assassinating General Soleimani: 
17. Kajtár, G., & Balázs, G. B. (2021). Beyond Tehran and Nairobi: Can Attacks against Embassies Serve as a Basis for the Invocation of Self-defence?. European Journal of International Law, 32(3), 863-888. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chab060
18. Kelemen, B. K., & Kiss, M. (2022). The targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani: A case study through the lens of jus ad bellum. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, 63(3),177-205
19. President Trump statement on death of Iranian commander. (2020, January 3). [Video]. C-SPAN.org. (https://www.c-span.org/video/?467859-1/president-trump-statement-death-iranian-commander)
20. Forgey, Q. (2020). Pompeo Insists Soleimani Threat was Imminent Despite Blowback. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pompeo-spars-with-reporters-over-imminent-soleimani-threat-097175
21. Kirby, J. (2021). Statement by the Department of Defense. news release, June, 27. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/
22. Callamard, A. (2020). Use of armed drones for targeted killings: report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/8948415/use-of-armed-drones-for-targeted-killings/9800925/ 
23. Zinn, H. (2011). Howard Zinn on war. Seven Stories Press.