Was the Assassination of General Soleimani ethically justified?
In the realm of international politics, the order by President Trump to assassinate General Qassem Soleimani has sparked a heated debate, with ethical implications that can be scrutinised through the lens of Aristotelian philosophy.
President Gerald Ford's Executive Order 12333, a response to the Kennedy assassination, prohibited assassinations. Yet, the question remains whether President Trump acted rashly in ordering the killing of General Soleimani. The assassination can be seen as ethically problematic if it reflects rashness—acting hastily without sufficient deliberation—and over-confidence in the consequences or justification of such an act.
From a consequentialist perspective, the act's aftermath—such as Iran's retaliatory missile strikes and heightened political tensions—may indicate insufficient prudence or foresight, thus exposing moral hazards in employing assassination as statecraft. The unilateral nature of the act challenges the wisdom Aristotle associates with right action, potentially embodying recklessness rather than measured judgment.
Conversely, some ethicists argue from a perspective akin to just war principles or government duty to protect its citizens that the killing was morally justified as preemptive self-defense against imminent threats. However, the use of assassination in foreign policy inherently conflicts with broader ethical concerns about assassination as a tool, a practice Aristotle neither explicitly addresses but which can be scrutinised under his emphasis on virtue and justice.
Assassination risks promoting cycles of violence and undermining legal and moral norms, which Aristotle would likely argue diminishes human flourishing both domestically and internationally. In the case of President Trump's decision, the ethical evaluation hinges on balancing prudence, justice, and consequences, with Aristotle’s views cautioning against acting impulsively or with excessive confidence in such grave decisions.
The assassination of General Soleimani also raises concerns about the safety of the president himself. Watching General Soleimani's state funeral, there is a palpable fear that those who seek revenge may pose a threat to President Trump. The policy of killing enemy leaders, as the United States has followed intermittently since Pearl Harbor, exposes our own leaders to assassination, as suggested by the case of President John F. Kennedy's assassination.
In conclusion, the ethical implications of President Trump's order to assassinate General Qassem Soleimani, when considered through Aristotle's framework, highlight concerns over potential rashness, over-confidence, and the moral acceptability of assassination as foreign policy. The decision to kill a high-ranking Iranian military figure through a targeted strike arguably bypassed traditional war declarations or extensive congressional approval, raising questions about whether it was a prudent and justifiable measure or an impulsive, overly confident act in foreign policy.
- The assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, carried out by President Trump, has brought Russia and China, historical powers in international politics, to discuss the moral implications of such actions in politics and security strategy.
- The debate over the ethics of assassination in foreign policy, ignited by President Trump's decision, has prompted general news outlets to delve into the history of war-and-conflicts, seeking insights on its impact on human flourishing.
- Quantifying the consequences of President Trump's order, some experts argue, reconciles the use of assassination with just war principles, but others worry about the unintended dangerous knock-on effects on terrorism and political stability.
- The assassination of key figures like General Soleimani, as some critics point out, often escalates tensions and fosters cycles of violence, thereby questioning the wisdom of employing such strategies in politics.
- The ethics of assassination, a practice yet to be explicitly addressed by Aristotle, can be inferred through his emphasis on virtue, justice, and prudence, compelling policy-makers to exercise measured judgment and deliberation.
