Following the decisive Trump administration move Thursday to take out longtime Iranian architect of terror, Qasem Soleimani, in a precise strike at a Baghdad airport, members of the incumbent administration began criticizing the decision.

Former Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and former National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes are two such examples.

Trump may have just started a war with no congressional debate. I really hope the worst case scenario doesn’t happen but everything about this situation suggests serious escalation to come.

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) January 3, 2020

Congress has to assert itself and determine exactly what our Iran policy is. Did we mean to do this? Do we have any plan for what comes next? What is the legal basis for all this?

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) January 3, 2020

A flag is not a strategy.

Trump is surrounded by sycophants (having fired those who’ve dissented). He has purged Iran specialists. He has abolished NSC processes to review contingencies. He is seen as a liar around the world.

This is likely to get very ugly very quickly. https://t.co/UV4o0uWVfe

— Samantha Power (@SamanthaJPower) January 3, 2020

It’s stunning and appalling that members of an administration that carries the ignoble legacy of paying Iran off — and thereby funding their terror activities throughout the Middle East and the world — would criticize the next administration’s decision to eliminate the threat of the same man responsible for planning those terrorist activities. In fact, Soleimani had a direct hand in planning the Benghazi attack.

Details: https://t.co/eGmu5Q9eAT

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) January 3, 2020

Not to mention the fact that Obama had fired General James Mattis, who was at the time head of Centcom, over the military leader’s insistence on dealing more aggressively with Iran.

Remember the 2011 Quds Force plot to bomb a Washington DC restaurant?

Mattis saw it as an act of war: "It would have been the worst attack on us since 9/11"

Obama fired Mattis for what he "believes were his insistent warnings about the Iranian threat."https://t.co/hq2uxa0FEc

— skepticalifornia (@skepticaliblog) January 3, 2020

Specifically, Mattis was let go — and never even given the courtesy of being told about it directly — because he was vocal in his concerns about what Iran was doing in the greater Middle East region.

There is also a belief that Mattis and Obama differed on Iran. “A particular point of disagreement was what to do about mischief Iran is exporting to other countries. Mattis is indeed more hawkish on this than the White House was,” writes Ricks in yet another post.

This is particularly interesting given Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s insistence that Soleimani was in the process of planning regional attacks against Americans and was actually killed in Iraq.

Team Obama, given your tendency to empower the Iranian regime and thereby unofficially approving their expansion of illicit activity in the region, perhaps, on the matter of Soleimani, your opinions are neither required nor desired.

Take a seat.