Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1605957556-scaled

Trump Administration knew Soleimani killing risked war with Iran

Heavily redacted classified DOJ memo shows the legal contortions used to justify the 2020 assassination.

Middle East
google cta
google cta

The Trump administration acknowledged that assassinating Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in January 2020 could have escalated into war with Tehran, a newly declassified memo shows.

Last week, the Biden administration released a heavily-redacted version of the legal justification for killing Soleimani, in response to a lawsuit filed by the civil liberties organization Protect Democracy.

The memo claims that Soleimani was “actively developing plans” to harm U.S. troops and diplomats in the Middle East and that the 2002 Iraq War authorization provided legal justification for the strike. Both those arguments were cited publicly by the Trump administration at the time. 

But the document also states that the administration “considered the risk that the operation could escalate into a broader conflict,” given that Soleimani was “part of the military of Iran.” In the end, “the President’s national security team advised him, based upon available intelligence, that the targeted operation would be unlikely to escalate into a full-scale war.”

Several high-level officials were known to have pushed then-President Donald Trump to carry out the assassination.

Mike Pompeo, secretary of state at the time of assassination, had met with officials to discuss ways to “take Qassem Soleimani off the board” soon after becoming CIA director in 2017, Yahoo News reported earlier this year.

Pompeo even floated a broader “leadership decapitation strategy” against Iran, reportedly telling officials, “Don’t worry about if it’s legal; that’s a question for the lawyers,” according to the Yahoo News report.

The opportunity presented itself in late December 2019, when clashes between U.S. forces and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq killed one American and 25 Iraqis, and led to a pro-Iranian mob attempting to storm the U.S. Embassy.

When the option to assassinate Soleimani was being discussed, Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Trump that he would “be held criminally negligible for the rest of your life if you don’t do this,” due to the risks posed by Soleimani’s operations to U.S. lives, according to journalists Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker in their upcoming book I Alone Can Fix It.

U.S. forces then killed Soleimani on January 3, 2020 in an airstrike outside Baghdad International Airport, where the Iranian officer was meeting with several Iraqi militia commanders. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. air base in Iraq, injuring over a hundred Americans.

In the days following the strike, the Trump administration offered contradictory explanations in public, first claiming that Soleimani posed an “imminent” threat to U.S. troops and diplomats, then admitting that they did not know of a specific time or place Soleimani planned to harm Americans.

The Trump administration’s explanation behind closed doors was not satisfactory, either, according to several Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Administration officials “were evasive and the answers were unsatisfactory,” one anonymous Democrat told Vox, while Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) publicly denounced officials for providing “the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue.”

When asked how the administration would request legal authorization for military force, an official simply said, “I’m sure we could think of something,” according to Lee.


Baghdad, Iraq, January 3, 2020, thousands of Iraq people participating in funeral program of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani
google cta
Middle East
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: An Iranian cleric and a young girl stand next to scale models of Iran-made ballistic missiles and centrifuges after participating in an anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli rally marking the anniversary of the U.S. embassy occupation in downtown Tehran, Iran, on November 4, 2025.(Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via REUTERS CONNECT)

Want Iran to get the bomb? Try regime change

Middle East

Washington is once again flirting with a familiar temptation: the belief that enough pressure, and if necessary, military force, can bend Iran to its will. The Trump administration appears ready to move beyond containment toward forcing collapse. Before treating Iran as the next candidate for forced transformation, policymakers should ask a question they have consistently failed to answer in the Middle East: “what follows regime change?”

The record is sobering. In the past two decades, regime change in the region has yielded state fragmentation, authoritarian restoration, or prolonged conflict. Iraq remains fractured despite two decades of U.S. investment. Egypt’s democratic opening collapsed within a year. Libya, Syria, and Yemen spiraled into civil wars whose spillover persists. In each case, removing a regime proved far easier than constructing a viable successor. Iran would not be the exception. It would be the rule — at a scale that dwarfs anything the region has experienced.

keep readingShow less
Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London
Top image credit: London, UK - 3rd May 2025: Protestors gather outside the Royal Mint to demonstrate against plans to relocate China's embassy to the site. (Monkey Butler Images/Shutterstock)

Much ado about a Chinese 'mega-embassy' in London

Europe

A group of Russian nuns were recently sighted selling holy trinkets in Swedish churches. Soon, Swedish newspapers were awash with headlines about pro-Putin spies engaged in “funding the Putin war machine.” Russian Orthodox priests had also allegedly infiltrated Swedish churches located suspiciously close to military bases and airports.

Michael Ojermo, the rector of Täby, a suburb of Stockholm, tried to quell the alarm. There is no evidence of ecclesiastical espionage, he said, and “a few trinkets cannot fund a war.”

keep readingShow less
world powers
Top photo credit: (Ben_Je/Shutterstock)

US-China symposium: Spheres of influence for me, not for thee?

Asia-Pacific

In the new National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, the Trump team charges that the Monroe Doctrine has been "ignored" by previous administrations and that the primary goal now is to reassert control over its economic and security interests in the Western Hemisphere.

"We will guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain, especially the Panama Canal, Gulf of America, and Greenland," states the NDS. The U.S. will work with neighbors to protect "our shared interests," but "where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests."

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.