The foreign policy establishment loves a good funeral. When a Hellfire missile ended Qasem Soleimani’s career outside Baghdad International Airport in January 2020, the consensus machine went into overdrive. Pundits traded in the currency of "imminent World War III." They spoke of a "fundamental shift in the global order" and a "new era of unchecked aggression."
They were wrong. For an alternative view, check out: this related article.
The week that followed wasn't a descent into chaos; it was a highly choreographed display of kinetic diplomacy. If you’ve spent any time in the rooms where these decisions get vetted, you know that "instability" is often the most stable product a superpower can export. The strike wasn't a blunder or a wild pivot. It was a brutal, necessary recalibration of the risk-reward calculus in the Middle East.
The Myth of the Unpredictable Actor
The most persistent lie in geopolitical analysis is that the 2020 escalation was "unpredictable." Critics claimed the Trump administration acted without a map. In reality, the map was the only thing that mattered. Related insight regarding this has been published by The Washington Post.
For decades, Iran operated under a doctrine of plausible deniability. They used proxies to bleed Western interests while keeping their own high-value assets shielded by the polite fiction of "non-state actors." Soleimani was the architect of this gray-zone warfare. By removing him, the U.S. didn't just kill a general; it killed the premise that the gray zone was a safe space to play.
The "lazy consensus" suggests that removing a key node in a network makes the network more volatile. On the contrary, removing a node that functions as the sole arbiter of escalation actually forces the remaining players to freeze. When the "invincible" man dies, the subordinates don't rush into the fire—they look for the exits.
The Arithmetic of the Counter-Strike
Look at the Iranian "retaliation" at Al-Asad Airbase. The media framed it as a terrifying escalation. Look closer at the data.
Iran fired ballistic missiles—not at a crowded barracks, but at a base they knew was on high alert, following back-channel communications that effectively functioned as a "clear the area" warning. This wasn't a move toward war. It was a face-saving exercise designed for internal consumption.
- Precision without Lethality: Iran demonstrated they could hit a target, but chose not to kill.
- De-escalation via Force: By launching a visible but non-fatal strike, Tehran checked the box of "revenge" without triggering a full-scale American invasion.
The establishment calls this "the brink of war." I call it a high-stakes negotiation where both parties finally understood the price of the next move.
Why the Global Market Didn't Care
If the world had truly changed in a week, the markets would have reflected a permanent risk premium. Instead, oil prices spiked and then retreated within days.
The reason is simple: The "War with Iran" narrative ignores the reality of energy independence. In 1979, a hiccup in the Strait of Hormuz could paralyze the American economy. In 2020, the U.S. was the world's largest producer of oil and gas.
We need to stop viewing the Middle East through the lens of the 1970s. The regional power balance is no longer about who controls the flow of crude; it’s about who can maintain the most efficient stalemate. The Soleimani strike proved that the U.S. could disrupt the stalemate at will, and the world realized that a dead general doesn't stop a Permian Basin fracking rig.
The Failure of "Expert" Diplomacy
I've watched think-tank careerists spend years "fostering" (to use their favorite useless word) dialogue that yields nothing but more dialogue. They argued that the 2015 JCPOA was the only thing preventing a nuclear Middle East.
The 2020 crisis proved that traditional diplomacy often operates on a false premise: that your adversary wants the same peace you do. Iran doesn't want peace; they want hegemony. When you treat a hegemon like a partner, you get played. When you treat them like a target, you get results.
The week of the strike didn't "change the world." It simply stripped away the veneer of the status quo. It forced the European Union to realize their "Special Purpose Vehicle" for bypassing sanctions was a paper tiger. It forced the Iraqi government to choose between being a sovereign state or a satellite office for the IRGC.
The Logistics of Deterrence
Deterrence isn't a feeling. It's an equation.
$$D = C \times W$$
Where $D$ is deterrence, $C$ is capability, and $W$ is the will to use it.
Before 2020, the world knew the U.S. had the capability ($C$), but they doubted the will ($W$). By executing a strike in a high-density urban area against a state official, the $W$ variable went from a question mark to a constant.
This is the part the "peace-at-any-price" crowd hates to admit: Violence, when applied with surgical precision against the right individual, is often the most effective tool for preventing mass-scale conflict. One dead general is a tragedy for Tehran; 10,000 dead soldiers in a regional war is a tragedy for everyone. The 2020 strike chose the former to prevent the latter.
Dismantling the "People Also Ask" Nonsense
People ask: "Did the strike make Americans safer?"
The question is flawed. "Safety" is an illusion in global politics. The real question is: "Did the strike increase the cost of Iranian aggression?" The answer is a resounding yes. Since 2020, Iranian proxies have had to operate with the knowledge that their handlers are no longer untouchable.
People ask: "Was it legal under international law?"
International law is a set of suggestions followed by those who lack the power to ignore them. In the real world, the "law" is whatever the dominant power can enforce without triggering a collapse.
The Hidden Cost: The 752 Tragedy
To be a true insider, you have to acknowledge the failures. The most devastating outcome of that week wasn't a missed political opportunity; it was the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752.
This was the byproduct of a nervous, amateurish Iranian air defense system operating under the pressure of the managed escalation I just described. It was a reminder that even when the principals are playing a calculated game, the "fog of war" is real and it kills civilians. This is the downside of the contrarian view: Managed chaos still contains chaos.
Stop Waiting for the Reset
The media wants you to believe that we are one election or one treaty away from a "return to normalcy" in the Middle East. There is no normalcy. There is only the constant recalibration of force.
The events of January 2020 didn't break the world. They fixed the perspective. We stopped pretending that the IRGC was a legitimate state actor and started treating it like the paramilitary conglomerate it is. We stopped pretending that "red lines" were optional.
If you’re still waiting for the "long-term consequences" to destroy the West, you’re going to be waiting a long time. The world changed in a week because it finally accepted that the old rules of engagement were a suicide pact.
The lesson isn't that war is good. The lesson is that the fear of war is the most powerful tool for keeping the peace—provided you're willing to prove the fear is justified.
Stop looking for a "holistic" solution to a problem that requires a scalpel.
