But, the killing of Soleimani – arguably Iran's second most important figure behind Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is undoubtedly a new level of escalation in this brewing conflict.
The US strikes against Soleimani are the result of 10 days of indirect conflict between Iran and the US on Iraqi soil. It began with a rocket attack, allegedly launched by an Iran-backed militia, on an Iraqi military base, which killed an American contractor and wounded several American service members. The US retaliated with airstrikes on five sites controlled by a number of Iran-backed militias in Syria and Iraq leading to the death of over 20 pro-Iran fighters.
This sequence of events led to a siege on the US Embassy in Baghdad by supporters of the militias. Perhaps given the US experience in Benghazi some seven years ago and the personality traits of the current commander-in-chief, there was no dallying: action was swift, and it was brazen.
It is undeniable that Iran has adopted a much harsher and militaristic approach to its regional geopolitics in the past few months. Many in the West, and some in the Middle East, see behind Iran's increased display of military power a materialisation of the decades-old rhetoric about Iran's dangerous expansionist goals in the Middle East.
However, the reality is far more complex and painting Iran as the sole "bad guy" in the Middle East demonstrates either naivety or wilful misdirection.
One should not forget that prior to this spiral towards war, Iran was warming up significantly to the West.
The Iran Nuclear Deal Agreement is an example of this. During the past four years up until the ending of the agreement by the US, Iran complied with the deal according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Also, Iran re-elected Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, in 2017. Iran and its proxies did not carry out any military or terrorist attacks during that time. While their support for the Syrian regime may be considered problematic, Iranian forces were at the forefront of the struggle against Isis, especially in Iraq. As the commander of Iran's elite special forces, the Quds forces, Soleimani played a key strategic role in this struggle.
Even ideologically, Iran's position was changing. Iranian's Shia ideologues switched the ideological emphasis from the 7th-century Shia revolutionary figure of Imam Hussein who played such an important role mobilising Iranian masses for the Iranian revolution to the "heroic political flexibility" of his elder brother, Imam Hassan who negotiated a peace treaty with his political enemy to avoid war and bloodshed.
So how can we explain this recent reversal in Iran's geopolitical approach?
Since the people in power in Iran are exactly the same as they were four years ago, Iran's more aggressive regional attitude is largely a reaction to the external setting. And, the clear variable in play here is the change in US president from Barack Obama to Trump.
Bluntly, Trump's election has undone all the progress made by the Obama Administration.
Trump turned his back on the Iranian deal calling it the "worst deal ever" and reimposed sanctions on Iran. Since then it has manufactured (or repeated) lies about Iran and has deployed troops all around Iran. Trump also increased America's partnership with Iran's archenemy, Saudi Arabia, which is now under the influence of a wild Crown Prince who has shown his willingness to engage in military interventions in the region. And now Trump just assassinated Iran's top military commander.
Of course, Iran is no innocent victim in this conflict and its past and present behaviour in the Middle East is a source of worry and should be condemned. But a fair and accurate condemnation of the current rise in tensions in the region should also focus on the reasons behind the changes in Iranian actions.
While the Obama Administration managed to bring Iran to the negotiating table and to help the transformation of Iran from a potential threat to a potential trading partner, the recent events and deepening of the conflict between the US (and its allies) and Iran (and its proxies) will take much longer to repair and turn Iran from a potential threat to an actual threat to the region.
Plainly told, the death of Soleimani and al-Muhandis, two figures who played a key role in the fight against Isis in Iraq, is likely to now turn Iraq into a new battlefield between the US and Iran.
If the strikes against the militias led to the siege of the US embassy, what will happen now that the US has targeted and killed the Iranian and Iraqi commanders of these militias? As the attacks on Saudi oil facilities in September have proven, Iran's proxies can destabilise significant countries in the Middle East.
Thus, while Trump's decision to assassinate Soleimani may give him a sense of power and satisfaction at besting an enemy, it will also lead the Middle East towards a period of increased chaos where no one will win.
- Nicolas Pirsoul is a lecturer at Massey University, Australian Catholic University
- Nicholas Ross Smith is Assistant Professor of International Studies at University of Nottingham Ningbo, China
