Stop saying "the world is a safer place today" because Soleimani was killed. The evidence suggests you have no idea.

Most Democrats, Republicans, and media commentators in the US seem to agree on one thing: the world is safer because Gen. Soleimani, leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' infamous Quds Force, was killed by a US airstrike. Interestingly, even those who want to criticize the Trump administration on the topic -- over the legality of the action, or the decision not to formally inform Congress, or the perceived lack of a strategy for avoiding dangerous escalation -- will usually begin their commentary by first admitting that "the world is a safer today” because Soleimani has been killed. This seems like the politically safe thing to say, especially if you plan to then criticize the process or policy or strategy of the administration. But saying this is extremely problematic for two reasons.

First, you have no idea yet whether the world is actually safer as a result of his death. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but it is entirely unclear (and quite unlikely) that the world became safer after Iraq was invaded and he was killed. We ended up with civil war in Iraq and Syria, the rise of ISIS, and another never-quite-ending military commitment in the Middle East. The same is true of Gaddafi. We can also look at cases where non-state “terrorists” have been killed. For example, after the original leader of Boko Haram (Mohammed Yusuf) was killed, Abubakar Shekau took over and turned the organization into the ever-more fanatical terrorist organization we now know, and which has aligned with ISIS.

Empirical research on the “decapitation” of terrorist organizations (as such killings are called) provides what is mostly a cautionary tale. History provides countless examples of such action making matters worse.  And it is not easy to predict how things will turn out—especially in complex environments (and the current context certainly qualifies as complex). This is true even without the risk of escalating towards an inter-state (US-Iran) or broader war. [So far, no Democrat or Republican (nor anyone in the Trump administration) claims there is a justification to get into an actual war with Iran—so we should not forget that if we stumble into one and then folks try to rewrite history and claim that killing Soleimani was okay because we needed to (or were destined to) go to war with Iran anyway, for its other bad behavior.] 

Second problem: politicians, policymakers and news/media personalities devalue (if not completely undermine) everything they really want to argue when they start by saying "well, of course the world is a better place because Soleimani is dead, but…". Whatever criticism or caution or question you wanted to raise afterwards is now too easy to ignore by the other side. "Hey, if we just made the world safer, what are you complaining about?" is the obvious answer.  

If you really think the killing of Soleimani makes the world safer, don’t use it as a punchline or preamble or to provide cover for the point you really want to make. If you believe this is the case, provide evidence or explain your logic. And no, talking about how bad the guy was – or that his organization was planning to commit more bad acts (which is obvious) – is not enough. He will be replaced. Bad things will still happen. Whether they will be as bad, less bad, or worse is unclear—but it is easy to see things getting worse.

If you like killing bad guys no matter the consequences, then so be it. But if you actually want to serve the national interest (e.g., enhance US national security), or if you want to stop Iran from doing things you don’t like, or if you want to resolve conflicts in the Middle East, you should get yourself a clearly articulable long-term strategy. It might involve taking actions like this one; it might not. Maybe the risk of escalation and war are acceptable given the potential deterrent benefits of killing this one guy. Too often, they are not. You have to explain why killing this particular bad guy is so different from killing the other bad (and worse) guys we killed before, which did not work out so well. Until then, please stop saying this makes the world a safer place. You have no idea.

- Prof. Deepak Malhotra, Harvard University