Loose talk about official assassinations is irresponsible

There is a long history in which the assassination of one nation's senior officials by another country is considered a reckless thing and illegal in international law.

This image can serve as a reminder:

Copy of the death mask of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914)

Paul Pillar discusses this in Making America Rogue Again Responsible Statecraft 01/06/2020:

Refraining from assassinating foreign leaders has been a wise American policy, partly to avoid the negative consequences of such killings. The consequences include reprisals by the targeted parties that may be not only in-kind but also take other forms. Moreover, other parties may be encouraged to play the game of nations by such loose and deadly rules. In this regard it is worth noting that the Russian foreign ministry’s statement about the Soleimani killing included the observation, “We have encountered a new reality—the murder of a representative of the government of a sovereign state, an official in the absence of any legal grounds for these actions.”

Killing a leader senior enough to make policy has the further disadvantage of eliminating one of the very people one may need to come to terms with to resolve a conflict. Soleimani was such a leader, being far more than just the commander of the Quds Force and, by some estimates, second only to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in shaping Iranian policy in the Persian Gulf and other nearby parts of the Middle East. The one thing now publicly known, via the Iraqi prime minister, about the mission that Soleimani was undertaking when he came to Baghdad on Friday was that he was conveying Iran’s reply to Saudi Arabia’s latest message in an Iraqi-mediated effort to calm cross-Gulf tensions. Everyone should applaud such an effort, in the interest of reducing the chance of war and disruption in the Persian Gulf. By killing Soleimani, Trump has also probably killed, at least for the time being, such peace-making endeavors.

In addition to avoiding the negative practical consequences, foreswearing the assassination of foreign leaders is a matter of principle. It gets to the character and values of a nation, and to the nation’s self-image and self-esteem. Killing other nations’ leaders is not the sort of thing a good nation does. It is the sort of thing terrorists do. [my emphasis]

The entire column is well worth reading. He has important observations about the assassination of Soleimani and its context. "The assassination of Qassem Soleimani, and the rationales offered for this killing, exhibit extreme myopia no matter where one looks in space and time."

And, in general, the new Responsible Statecraft website operated by Andrew Bacevich's Quincy Institute.

Chemi Shalev (Israelis Hailing Trump for Killing Soleimani Forget the Destructive Consequences of Past Assassinations Haaretz 01/06/2020) writes:

Yahya Ayyash deserved to die. The so-called Hamas “engineer”, who was assassinated in January 1996, had perfected the suicide vests worn by Hamas terrorists, turning them increasingly lethal. His killing sparked widespread enthusiasm among Israelis. Then Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who approved the plan to booby-trap Ayyash’s cellphone, was portrayed for the first time in his life as the kind of ruthless leader Israelis yearn for.

The end is known. The killing of Ayyash enraged Palestinians and pushed Hamas to carry out four suicide bombings within eight days, in which 59 Israelis were killed. The shock and fear that gripped Israeli public opinion turned Peres from valiant hero to impotent loser paved the way for Benjamin Netanyahu’s sensational victory in the May 1996 elections – and changed Israel forever. [my emphasis]

But he expresses some optimism that many Americans will recognize the recklessness of Trump's assassination of Qasem Soleimani:

Unlike his Israeli fans, most Americans cannot separate Trump’s supposedly brave if brazen decision to approve Soleimani’s assassination from his otherwise erratic and impulsive conduct in all other arenas, foreign and domestic. Trump’s threat to destroy 52 Iranian targets, including world heritage cultural sites, is not only a barbaric notice of intent to commit war crimes, unbecoming of any U.S. President, it is also a symptom of the kind of presidential inanity that could ignite the Middle East - and inflict a harsh blow on Israel itself. [my emphasis]

James Stavridis also reminds us to brace for what's coming (Brace for the Unintended Consequences of Killing Soleimani Bloomberg Opinion 01/06/2020): "So often, big doors can swing on small hinges. The effects of Soleimani’s death will ripple from Baghdad to Tel Aviv to Nairobi to South America."

A former supreme allied commander of NATO, Stavridis has this to say about NATO countries' reactions:

Finally, at the geostrategic level, there is the way the Soleimani assassination will be received in NATO. During my time as the alliance’s top military commander, it became clear to me that the center of gravity of the alliance is political cohesion. Now that consensus is weakening, as many of the member-states start questioning the legality of this action under international law.Unintended consequence. Germany has already suspended the rotation of its troops to Iraq, and the entire North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission there - to train the Iraqi security forces - is paused and at risk. [my emphasis]

Despite his warnings, though, he nevertheless tacks on in the final paragraph, "Based on what information has been made public and my own experience, I support the administration’s decision to take out Soleimani." He does not discuss the legal issues involved.