The story began to unravel as soon as it hit the street. Apparently, the threat was so severe that it was worth killing Soleimani and courting war with a country of 80 million people. It's unclear, however, whether it was severe enough to actually warn any U.S. Embassies that they were in peril. National security adviser Robert O'Brien dodged the question when it was asked. (Republican members of Congress might consider that such laxity was why they grilled then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for 11 hours about Benghazi, Libya, in 2015.)
Worse, Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said that he saw no such evidence. Making the rounds of the Sunday shows, Esper said only that the president believed the attacks were possible, and that therefore he believes the president. It is inconceivable such intelligence would have been kept from Esper, and his admission that he has not seen any such thing raises justifiable suspicions that this “exquisite” intelligence does not exist.With both al-Baghdadi and Soleimani, as with so many other moments with this president, Trump can’t seem to stick to one coherent story. And so we end up talking not about policy, but whether there is something deeply wrong with the commander in chief and whether he can be trusted with American national security.
The more ominous problem here is that the Trump team’s deceptiveness looks much more like “wag the dog” than the elimination of a clear and present danger. It might well be true that any day when Soleimani is taken out of action is a good day. But Trump — like Bill Clinton ordering an airstrike on Iraq the day after the Republican House accused him of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in 1998 — is arguing that military necessity forced him to act.