We had to, the Threat, it was Imminent! – American Political Proverb
After Donald Trump had Qassem Suleimani assassinated, people wanted an explanation. A reckless escalation in the ongoing US antagonization of Iran, there seemed little to no justification that would warrant use of force against the military commander of a sovereign nation.
The explanation offered was a familiar one. Suleimani was an “Imminent Threat”, supposedly planning attacks on American targets. When pressed, no further evidence was provided, but that’s unsurprising. Normally when a President invokes an “Imminent Threat” as justification for military action nobody bats an eye.
The phrase has become ubiquitous in foreign policy speak since the beginning of the War on Terror. It conjures images of shadowy terrorist cabals boarding planes to carry out another 9/11. It inspires storylines about hidden nuclear bombs and ticking clocks on TV shows like 24, and embodies the paranoid belief that danger lurks around every corner.
In fact George W. Bush claimed Saddam Hussein was an Imminent Threat in the lead up to invading Iraq.
At its core, the invocation of an “Imminent Threat” is an assertion of the right to preemptively strike. That if the United States does not strike first, an attack will happen and lives will be lost.
If you don’t swiftly act to counter the Imminent Threat, the blood would be on your hands too.
The most insidious aspect is that the broad claim of an Imminent Threat cannot be disproven. If the target is killed, the attack can’t happen. Speculation as to the reality of the threat is no more than a counterfactual.
The military and Executive Branch of the USG quickly learned how to avoid the mistake of getting too specific. If you claim the Imminent Threat involves, say, weapons of mass destruction, then it’s much easier to discredit because proving the claim requires finding weapons of mass destruction.
But, if you focus on the supposed plans and actions of individuals or small groups, all you need is a handful of classified intelligence reports to justify your assertion. Hell, it doesn’t even have to be a threat to your own country or citizens. Any threat will do!
The Obama administration picked up the idea of the Imminent Threat as justification for its targeted killing program from the Bush Administration. In keeping with Obama’s promise to wage war “smarter”, it quickly fleshed out the legal fiction of the Imminent Threat to allow for the sort of special-forces-drone-strike imperialism that dominates US foreign policy today.
The focus on the Imminent nature of the supposed threats serves as a convenient excuse to shield such decisions from public or congressional scrutiny. Precisely because it’s about to happen at any moment, there’s simply no time for argument or investigation of the claims being made. Once the action is taken, whether or not the threat really was Imminent, or real at all, is a moot point.
As long as the target is an individual, and the action a limited strike or raid rather than a full scale war, it will not be subject to the same kind of mass backlash as the war in Iraq.
The entire concept is more one of political expediency than actual security. A way to signal that you’re not being irresponsible with the use of military force. No, you’re merely responding to the constant, innumerable, threats to the US and its interests responsibly. You’re not starting wars of aggression or committing illegal war crimes, you’re defending the American People, somehow.
One need only look to the most recent Democratic Presidential Primary debate to see the logic of the Imminent Threat doctrine at work. Each candidate condemned, to varying degrees, Trump’s killing of Soleimani as irresponsible. But, when pressed, every single candidate promised they would take decisive action in the event of an Imminent Threat.
Yet, nobody ever bothers to define what precisely constitutes an Imminent Threat. A threat to what and a threat to whom? How Imminent is Imminent? It’s a deliberately vague phrase that allows the person invoking it near endless leeway.
It’s an easy way to be for war while being “against” war. It’s a signal to the foreign policy blob that while you might not take any big military actions that could hurt your approval rating, you’re more than happy to carry on with the dark and dirty wars that have been happening in the background of the American consciousness for decades.
It also demands a constant state of readiness. In the eventuality of an Imminent Threat forces must be equipped and ready to respond at a moment’s notice. That means big defense budgets and big defense contracts and big defense profits. It means bases all over the world so no threat is too distant to eliminate. The price of constant vigilance.
Hell, I imagine there are “Imminent Threats” all over the place. On every continent, in every country (especially the ones we don’t like), in every city, and every home. Why, there could be an Imminent Threat creeping up behind you right now.
In reality, for most of the world there’s only one real Imminent Threat, and we’re it.
Jean Krill is is the co-editor and co-founder of Zero Balance. His writing navigates the many disparate visions of a radically better future.