Follow us on social

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

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
Middle East
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

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.