THE weekend’s opinion pages were filled with columnists offering their views on the killing of the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. Here’s what writers had to say about the drone strike.

The Observer
Hassan Hassan, a resident fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, argued in the Observer that the killing of Soleimani “could prove to be the most consequential US slaying of an enemy operative in recent memory”.
He wrote: “It will eclipse in its significance the killing of Osama bin Laden almost a decade ago or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in October. Not because it might spark another Middle East war, as many have warned, or merely because Soleimani was irreplaceable. 
“Rather, his killing came at a time when the project he had led – to create an Iranian hegemony in the region – is facing unprecedented challenges in Iraq and Lebanon, through cross-sectarian and grassroots protests, while in Syria the project is still in its infancy.”
Mr Hassan added: “In short, his death does not mark the end of Iran’s hegemonic project, but it does serve a heavy blow to the regime’s ability to expand its influence and deal with erupting crises. In all of the countries where Iran built deep influence, its allies are left exposed and vulnerable to grassroots trends and local rivals. The one man with a proved record of dealing with such crises died trying.”

The Times
Niall Ferguson claimed in the Times that Iran is too weak to start a world war. He wrote: “Iran is in dire economic straits, largely because of American sanctions, which the Trump administration tightened last year. Oil production is down by nearly half since April 2018. The International Monetary Fund estimates that the Iranian economy shrank by 9.5 per cent last year. The Statistical Centre for Iran puts the inflation rate at 47.2%.
“The country’s beleaguered rulers gambled that they could force America to relax sanctions by exerting force, in the belief that Trump would not risk war in an election year. Wrong. America may now face pandemonium in Iraq, but Iran will not necessarily be the beneficiary. There is a good deal of anti-Iranian sentiment in the country; indeed, there have been numerous anti-Iranian protests since October and many in Iraq celebrated Soleimani’s obliteration last week. It is in the wider regional struggle for mastery, however, that Iran is most obviously at a disadvantage.”
He added: “Civil war in Iraq? Quite possibly. A Third World War? Forget about it. The unanswered question is what, if anything, can be done to reverse the biggest trend of the past decade, which has been Russia – not Iran – taking over from the United States as the Middle East’s powerbroker. The assassination of Soleimani changes many things. It doesn’t change that.”

The Mail on Sunday
In The Mail on Sunday, the BBC’s North America editor Jon Sopel claimed that President Trump’s decision to keep the UK in the dark over the killing shows contempt for the countries’ “special relationship”.
He wrote: “This is a very leaky White House. When Mr Trump twice ordered missile strikes against Syrian forces over their use of chemical weapons, we in the media had been put on standby. 
“Before the second attack a source told me when it would start, and what time the President would address the nation. But on this there was nothing. Not a word seeped out.
“Far more controversial was the decision to keep America’s closest ally, the UK, in the dark. There was nothing. Not a nod or a wink.
“Maybe it wasn’t actually a conscious decision. Maybe – even worse – it just never occurred to the US to tell Boris Johnson.
“Either way it suggests at best indifference, at worst mild contempt for the Special Relationship. But this has consequences for Britain. We have an embassy in Tehran and Baghdad, and other assets where staff could have been moved to a higher state of alert.”
He added: “The central tension of the Trump presidency has been America First (the pitch he sold to his supporters) versus America in the world. Isolationists versus globalists; doves versus hawks.
“Now Donald Trump, the hawk, has stood up. But a chain of events has been set in motion whose impact could be far more momentous in its scale than whether it will assist his re-election or not. He has acted. Now we await Iran’s reaction and wonder what will be the US President’s next move.”