Why the US assassination of Iran’s top general didn’t spark a war

Iran’s new meddler-in-chief in Iraq is a bespectacled general called Esmail Ghaani. Brought in to replace Qassem Soleimani after his death in a US airstrike in January, he has the same green uniform as his predecessor, the same grey beard, and the same orders to make Iraq’s Shia militias do Tehran’s bidding.

That, though, is where the similarities end. Soleimani was a legend among his followers in Iraq — he spent years building contacts with local commanders and joined them on the battlefield against Isis in Mosul. Ghaani, by contrast, is an owlish, uncharismatic figure who looks like he might be happier behind a desk. Unlike Soleimani, he doesn’t speak Arabic and has to rely on a translator during his visits to Baghdad.

All of which helps explain why, six months after Donald Trump ordered Soleimani’s assassination, predictions that it would spark even worse bloodshed have largely failed to come true. Back then, it looked like the moment Trump’s critics had been waiting for — the act of recklessness that would set the Middle East ablaze.

So far, though, apart from an initial flurry of rocket attacks, not much has happened. There have been no terror ‘spectaculars’, no kidnappings of Americans on the streets of Baghdad or Beirut. And much of that, diplomats say, is because Soleimani has simply proved impossible to replace. After all, personal contacts and trust count for a lot in the Middle East, especially when you’re asking people to fight and maybe die for you.

Moreover, when Soleimani’s replacement goes to Baghdad these days, he’s kept under watch by a new Iraqi leader who is rather less welcoming. Mustafa al-Kadhimi, a former exile who used to live in London, was sworn in as Baghdad’s Prime Minister in May.