Qassem Suleimani had been the number one foe
of the US in the Middle East for many years.
There was no question that he was the most important
person for Iran in projecting Iran's interests.
 
 
For at least the last 15 years,
Qassem Suleimani had been an untouchable in the region.
Very very powerful, very influential,
he's somebody who had matched wits with US generals and presidents.
Nobody had wanted to touch him.
Suleimani's hands were drenched in both American 
and Iranian blood.
He should have been terminated long ago.
There had been allegations from Donald Trump that Suleimani had been
actively plotting against US interests in the region.
That he was hatching plans to go after
whether it be the US embassy in Baghdad or 
even in Beirut.
There were suggestions that he was front and centre
to plans which may affect US personnel.
Now it's important to acknowledge that those
suggestions by the US administration
have not been proven.
People are starting to ask 'why now did he do this?'
'Why not delay?'
And why this one is so dangerous
is that he is truly taking us right to the edge of war.
I think Donald Trump does have to answer for 
whether he has
opened a frontier against Iran
in the midst of some very distracting
and destabilising domestic issues for him,
including impeachment.
I think the success of the killing
of the Isis leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
who was an enemy to all of civilisation.
I think that has emboldened Trump.
I do think that on the back of that, an act
for which he received very little criticism,
he was minded to go for round two with another figure,
the complexity and standing of whom
he didn't quite understand.
Qassem Suleimani is not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,
he was a very influential figure for a nation state.
While it is true that he had
actively contributed to operations that
killed US personnel throughout the 
course of the Iraqi war,
he wasn't by any objective definition a terrorist.
He has made an allegation that the
decision to kill Qassem Suleimani came from
real-time evidence, but I think he
does need to substantiate that, he does need to
prove that this is indeed the case.
If he doesn't, the allegation that this was a
'wag the dog' sort of initiative to distract people
from the more pressing problems that he was facing
will continue to haunt him.
