The Steps That Led to the Killing of Suleimani

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/opinion/letters/us-iran-trump.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Trump’s Choice of Killing Stunned Defense Officials” (front page, Jan. 5):

I was appalled to read that military aides included the option of killing Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani of Iran simply to make other options look more reasonable. That may work when the president is actually a mature adult, but not when he has the mind of, and acts like, a 12-year-old boy.

I hold the military and Pentagon responsible for all of the innocent lives that I fear will be lost as a direct result of this irresponsible action. What happens the next time when the aides put on the list the option of dropping a nuclear bomb on Tehran, with the hope that the president will choose a different option?

Our system of government works only if there are some actual, thinking adults in the room. It doesn’t appear that our current system has a built-in mechanism for anyone to review, advise or consent before this president makes even worse choices in the days to come.

Steve FoxColumbia, Md.

To the Editor:

You report that an American official describes the evidence supporting the Suleimani assassination as “thin.” That assessment echoes what the head of British intelligence secretly told his government, nearly 20 years ago, about President George W. Bush’s excuse for invading Iraq: “the case was thin” and “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of going to war.

We can no more rely on Donald Trump to honestly report a threat than we could Mr. Bush. The issue is whether, this time, Congress will refuse to support a needless and calamitous war.

Karl Marx famously wrote that “history repeats itself; first as tragedy, second as farce.” Sadly, he may be shown to be wrong: A second Republican president’s Middle East war would prove an even graver tragedy than the first.

Mitchell ZimmermanPalo Alto, Calif.

To the Editor:

Impetuous, impulsive, reckless. All accurately define Donald Trump and his leadership since he became president. Withdrawing the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, which by all appearances was achieving its intended objectives, was one of the earlier mind-boggling decisions coming from the Oval Office. The targeted killing of Qassim Suleimani was the latest.

Citing an imminent threat to American interests and people that required immediate action, Mr. Trump pulled a trigger. And while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that Americans are now 100 percent safer, it sure doesn’t feel that way.

I suspect that most Americans are not imagining that this impulsive action is moving the United States and Iran closer to the negotiating table. Rather, Americans are bracing for yet another war in the Mideast with our name on it and wondering if it is safe to walk the streets of Times Square.

Felicia MassarskyAtlantic City, N.J.

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Warns Iran as Ayatollah Vows Revenge” (front page, Jan. 4):

Murdering Qassim Suleimani can easily be justified. President Trump’s mistake was publicly taking ownership of the action, a behavior that contrasts sharply with what Israel does. Israeli prime ministers, as a matter of policy, never publicize clandestine military operations.

Taking ownership of the operation jeopardizes the lives of countless Americans serving this country in embassies worldwide. Clearly and unfortunately, we have a president who publicly glorifies this action without considering any consequences to the welfare of fellow Americans.

Bob PodhurstMontclair, N.J.

To the Editor:

The blood of every American or innocent person who will be killed in retaliatory attacks by Iran, as a result of President Trump’s order to assassinate Qassim Suleimani against advice of most who are charged with advising him on matters of war, is on Mr. Trump’s hands. That the attack was politically motivated, without any imminent threat, is another example of why Mr. Trump should be removed from office. Our men and women in uniform are being sent to fight, to the death if necessary, and at home and abroad we can expect acts of terror to result in the death of civilians.

Laurie MeyersDavie, Fla.

To the Editor:

While the killing of Qassim Suleimani was a highly provocative and dangerous act, Iran now has a chance to correct its path forward instead of seeking revenge, at great cost.

In the 1970s when the shah was in power, Iran moved too far to the right in favoring the wealthy, at the expense of the majority of its people, who were poor. With the turmoil of revolution, it moved too far in the other direction in the 1980s, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was the supreme leader.

Having swung in such opposites, Iran, with a highly educated middle class, now needs to recognize that these extremes of its ruling government haven’t worked, and it’s time for the vast majority to take leadership in hand, and end the cycle of provocation that has lasted over 40 years.

Peter SamtonNew YorkThe writer worked as an architect in Iran in the 1970s.