Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr said Monday that killing Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani was part of a larger strategy of deterrence, a shift from the Trump administration's previous rationale that the strike was carried out to prevent an "imminent" attack.
Barr's comments were particularly noteworthy as he attempted to push back on criticism over the administration's claim that Soleimani was planning attacks that posed an imminent threat, calling the concept "something of a red herring."
"I believe there was intelligence of imminent attack, but I do believe that concept of imminence is something of a red herring," he said during a press conference on last month's deadly shooting at a Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida.
"I think when you're dealing with a situation where you already have attacks underway, you know there is a campaign that involves repeated attacks on American targets, I don't think there's a requirement frankly for, you know, knowing the exact time and place of the next attack. And that certainly was the position of the Obama when it droned leaders of terrorist organizations," Barr added.
Pompeo, who has leaned heavily on the assertion that intelligence showed an imminent threat, did not mention that reasoning Monday during a speech at the Stanford's Hoover Institute.
"I want to lay this out in context of what we've been trying to do. There's a bigger strategy to this," the top US diplomat said. "President Trump and those of us in his national security team are re-establishing deterrence -- real deterrence ‒ against the Islamic Republic of Iran."
Trump administration officials have issued confusing explanations, contradicting each other about how imminent a threat the Iranian general posed, whether they had specific intelligence on the threat and even what that threat was, with Trump saying one thing, then another, while officials offered varying explanations.
Immediately after the strike, Pompeo told CNN Soleimani had been involved in planning an "imminent attack" in the region that put American lives at risk, adding that the US made an intelligence-based assessment that killing Soleimani would save Americans.
The Pentagon, however, offered a slightly different account, saying in a statement that the strike was carried out to deter future attacks against US interests.
Soleimani again and again. This is the result.
While both could be true, the discrepancy has resulted in some confusion over how the administration intends to explain its reasoning for killing the man many considered to be the second most powerful figure in Iran without congressional approval.
During the question and answer portion of his remarks Monday, Pompeo did reiterate that "there was in fact a set of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qasem Soleimani," but his emphasis on deterrence marked a notable departure from how he has sought to justify the strike in the 11 days since it took place.
Barr's comments also indicate the administration may be pivoting away from its core defense of the strike and reframing its argument around the idea of deterrence.
"Our ability to deter attacks had obviously broken down. The Iranians had been given a number of red lines and were crossing those lines," he said.
"This was a legitimate act of self-defense because it disrupted ongoing attacks that were being conducted, a campaign against the Americans. And it reestablished deterrence, it responded to attacks that had been already committed," Barr added. "Our purpose and our expectation was not to trigger a broader conflict or that events would spin out of control. On the contrary, we believed that the strike would restore deterrence and help avoid a upward spiral of the violence."
Rep. Justin Amash slammed the attorney general's comments, tweeting that the "red herring here is from Bill Barr."
"When there is a campaign that involves repeated attacks on American targets, then there is no excuse for the administration not to have sought an authorization from Congress, as the Constitution demands. Otherwise, imminence is required," the independent from Michigan added.
Critics argue that Barr's mischaracterized the Obama administration's position on drone strikes in an attempt to defend the Soleimani strike.
"Barr is comparing apples to oranges," according to CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck.
"The Obama administration took the view that those strikes were authorized by Congress through the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, as opposed to the President's inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief. With those different authorities come different legal analysis," he said.
"The reason why imminence is viewed as such an essential part of the Article II question is because, without it, the President would arguably have the authority to use military force by himself in a remarkably broad array of situations," Vladeck added.
