A hated man who had "A lot of blood on the hands". Regardless of their ideological nuances, the media across the Atlantic are unanimous, Friday, January 3, in the description of the head of the special forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Ghassem Soleimani. The architect of Tehran’s wars in the Middle East, and one of the key figures in the Islamic Republic, was murdered the night before by a US raid in Baghdad, Iraq.
"This is a great moment for the United States that should be celebrated by all Americans", welcomes the conservative daily in an editorial The Washington Examiner. The decision of Donald Trump, who himself initiated the order of "Kill" the high-ranking officer will make the lives of his citizens safer, says columnist Christian Whiton on Fox News.
According to the Pentagon, Ghassem Soleimani "Was actively planning to attack US diplomats and soldiers in Iraq and across the region".
"The riskiest decision in the United States"
If, with this assassination, the tenant of the White House "Prevented this bloodshed from happening", in the words of Christian Whiton, he also agreed to "What could mark the most dramatic escalation of the conflict in the Middle East since the war in Iraq"says Michael Hirsh in magazine Foreign Policy.
The head of state took one of the most "Great bets" of his mandate, considers the Los Angeles Times :
"Throughout his presidency, Trump has made fiery statements, but has generally resisted dramatic belligerent actions. "
Because if the Republican repeated to his supporters that he would use a decisive force against the enemies of America, he also promised not to participate in the wars in the Middle East and to bring American troops home , recalls the daily. And the latter to point out that some former advisers to the president had warned him about the character "Irreconcilable" of these two promises.
The Washington Examiner, he justifies the intervention:
"The assassination of Soleimani did not take place in a vacuum, but after a regular escalation of Iranian attacks on the United States. Trump deserves our congratulations on his bold decision to eliminate a man who has done more to destabilize the Middle East than anyone else. "
However, insists David E. Sanger in the columns of New york times, the raid "Transforms a simmering conflict with Tehran into a bubbling conflict". The daily, reputed to be close to the Democrats, even believes that it could be "The riskiest decision in the United States" In the region "Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003".
"Create a counter-discourse"
"Taking action of this gravity without involving Congress raises serious legal problems and constitutes an affront to the powers of Congress", lamented in a statement Eliot Engel, the Democratic head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives.
A few months before the presidential election and when the trial to remove President Trump from the Senate begins, "It’s only a matter of time before we wonder if the raid was decided to create a counter-discourse, a conflict with a long-standing adversary", advance it New york times.
On Fox News, Christian Whiton retorts:
"The force led by Soleimani is responsible for the export of terrorism and political chaos to the Iranian regime. For the first time, an American president pushed back Tehran with force and made him pay a clear consequence for his use of terrorism. This is what the Democrats cannot accept. "
The unknown now is the reaction of the Iranians, says CNN analyst Peter Bergen: "In recent months, they have carried out strikes that appear intended to intimidate the United States and its allies, but not to provoke an open war. "
"The goal [from the deadly raid on January 3] was to demonstrate American determination in the face of Iranian attacks. Now, US officials have no doubt that the Iranians will respond – but they do not know how quickly and with what fury. ”, summarizes it New york times.
Our selection of articles on the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran