Ever since U.S. drones took out Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Jan. 2, there have been undefined claims that the action halted some “imminent attack” that was a danger to hundreds, if not thousands of Americans. However, despite multiple appearances by Mike Pompeo, a press briefing held by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and a seemingly stoned speech delivered by Donald Trump, no details on what this imminent threat might be were provided. On Wednesday, Pompeo responded to questions about the threat by pointing to things that had happened in the past, suggesting that that anyone looking for “imminence” should look at a rocket attack that took place on Dec. 27.
In his initial round of Sunday talk show appearances, Pompeo said that there was intelligence indicating that Soleimani had been seeking permission from Tehran to conduct some unspecified operation, but that he had not yet obtained that permission. In a Wednesday briefing with White House and Defense officials, Sen. Amy Klobuchar was among several members of Congress who attempted to learn if there was actually anything behind the claims of a pending attack and to follow up on Pompeo’s claims, only to be given no information at all.
But on Thursday, Donald Trump suddenly popped out an extraordinary claim. Speaking at the White House following the rollout of devastating changes to environmental regulations, Trump repeated earlier statements saying that Soleimani was a “total monster” who should a have been killed “a long time ago.” Then Trump suddenly dropped a whole new explanation: “We did it because they were looking to blow up our embassy.”
This claim, that Soleimani was involved in a scheme to blow up the U.S. embassy—presumably the embassy in Baghdad, which had been the focus of protests just days before—is wholly new. No other briefing, interview, or document has provided any information about this scheme. And certainly no intelligence or evidence have been provided to date supporting Trump’s out-of-nowhere claim.
It’s unclear whether there actually is any evidence for Trump’s claim. What is clear, based on past events, is that this will now become the claim supported by Republicans and the White House, and, no matter the evidence, it will become, in the Kellyanne Conway sense, an “alternative fact.” Because even when he’s dead wrong, Trump is never wrong.
Had Iran intended to target the embassy, it might have done so by firing missiles, as it did on Tuesday evening. However, it seems unlikely that it would have taken such direct action before the killing of Soleimani. The massive U.S. compound in Baghdad might also have come under fire from the same kind of unguided Katyusha rockets that were used in an attack on an Iraqi base on Dec. 27, though it’s unlikely such an attack would have done much damage.
In either case, it would certainly seem that, if the United States had had clear evidence of Soleimani planning to mount an attack on the U.S. embassy, the White House would have simply made that claim from the beginning. Earlier, Mike Pence had claimed that the White House was refusing to provide more details on the imminent threat out of concerns over revealing “sources and methods.” If that’s true, then there’s no longer a concern—because Trump already burned that bridge.
If there is evidence for this claim, let’s see it.