Donald Trump‘s decision to authorize a drone strike against top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani has drawn bi-partisan pushback. Benjamin B. Ferencz, a former prosecutor of the post-World War II Nuremberg trials, wrote to The New York Times this week to explain his opposition to the decision.
Ferencz outlined his belief that the Nuremberg trials offered him an opportunity to repay the United States for the opportunities it provided him as an immigrant who arrived from Romanian-occupied Hungary in 1921.
“As a Harvard Law School graduate who has written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of national and international law,” he wrote of Soleimani’s assassination.
Ferencz claimed that the United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are all being “bypassed” and claimed that “young people everywhere” in the “cyberspace world” are in “mortal danger.” According to Ferencz, the solution is to “change the hearts and minds” of people who appear to “prefer war to law.”
Per Newsweek, Soleimani was head of Iran’s Quds Force and credited as the force behind Iran’s military foreign policy for the last two decades. He allegedly directed Tehran’s involvement in wars taking place in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. He also helped extend Iranian influence across the Middle East. Soleimani was reportedly viewed as the second most powerful person in the Persian country, only surpassed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
While Ferencz noted that he believes the U.S. “murdered” Soleimani — who he called an “important military leader” in a country that the U.S. was not at war with — defenders of Trump’s decision suggest the killing was necessary to maintain order.
I lost two limbs to an improvised explosive device just like those that Soleimani used against American soldiers. He was a horrific monster who caused unimaginable suffering. @realDonaldTrump was absolutely justified in his decision to eliminate this terrorist from our world. pic.twitter.com/yWofcrBv62
— Rep. Brian Mast (@RepBrianMast) January 10, 2020
James L. Jones, a former national security adviser who served under Barack Obama, believes that Trump’s decision was necessary, calling it a “potential game changer” for the region. He urged the president to ignore the pushback on the decision, suggesting that such voices want to maintain the status quo. Jones believes that this status quo would allow Iran to continue wreaking havoc around the world.
As The Inquisitr reported, longtime Iraq War advocate David Wurmser reportedly has Trump’s ear on Iran. He allegedly helped make a case for Soleimani’s assassination, explicitly noting that the blow would disrupt the “delicate internal balance of forces” that he believes are necessary for Iran’s functioning. Such a belief reportedly adheres to a hard-right faction theory that surfaced following George W. Bush’s re-election, which proposed that a ground war is not necessary for regime change in Iran.