Hours after the US kill General Soleimani, White House officials reel in overtime to help Trump explain the "extermination order".

The plan to eliminate Major General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Quds task force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), was approved by Trump months ago, after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then National Security Adviser is John Bolton urging him to do more to deal with Iran in the Middle East.

The US military then did not take action, because Trump had long tried to avoid a direct military confrontation with Tehran, while killing Soleimani was a move that could bring the two countries closer to the crater of the war.

But after a US contractor died in an attack on a base in Iraq and a US embassy in Baghdad was surrounded by protesters in late December, Trump gave a green light to the plan. The January 3 killing is a departure from Trump's usual policy and officials know that they will have to make an effort to explain not only the reason behind the attack but also the government's goal. in dealing with Iran.

"There is an element of surprise in this. It's true that we have been planning for a long time but did not think carefully about how to handle it after the killing. Like we said to each other 'okay, done. one thing, now what to do? ", a senior official in the Trump administration said.

For more than a week, Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence and officials from the national security community held two meetings each day and remote discussions to ensure all the main agencies. The government issued the same message about the murder of Soleimani.

The effort was unsuccessful, however, when White House officials later gave various answers on intelligence and legal grounds for the air strike, as well as determined the strategy of Trump administration with Iran after the attack. These are worrisome that Trump and his aide made the country "lost" on the path of escalating tensions with Tehran.

Within days of the murder of Soleimani, Pentagon officials warned Trump and national security advisers that Iran had many options to respond to the U.S., such as attacking high-ranking US officers abroad or targeting US outpost in countries like Iraq. The president is worried about how the attack might impact the upcoming election. Avoid costly foreign wars in the Middle East, which was his key promise in the 2016 election.

During his White House meetings, Trump stressed his aides to reassure the public that the United States would not get bogged down in a new war. Once Soleimani is dead, the Trump administration will bring "everything back to normal" to Iran, according to an anonymous official.

Trump and senior government officials want to emphasize the attack is a way to reduce tensions, with the argument that if the United States did not kill Soleimani, many would die because Iran would continue to carry out the attacks. in the area.

For the first week after the attack, officials appeared on television and radio programs in an effort to deliver that message. Brian Hook, the US special envoy for Iran, said on the BBC's radio program that the murder of Soleimani was "to promote peace".

The State Department, in collaboration with the White House, drafted notes to advise officials who will appear in the media. They were asked to emphasize the "atrocities" of Soleimani.

But the White House wants to push another argument, not about what Iran has done, but what US officials say it is about to do. They said the US killed Soleimani because he planned "imminent" attacks that would harm US interests.

Those notes are constantly emailed to Pentagon, the White House, State Department officials, and some Republican MPs. On the night of the air strike, the Pentagon said Soleimani was "actively developing a plan" for an unidentified attack.

However, on January 5, Pompeo said in some morning talk shows that there were "constant threats" from Iran, rather than a specific attack. Officials raised various theories about how many Americans could be killed if Soleimani was alive.

The following week, during meetings with parliament, the government struggled to explain exactly what the "imminent" attack of Soleimani was. The senators left a caucus on Jan. 8 feeling angry that the White House argument was unconvincing, warning that the intelligence offered was incompatible with the way officials granted it. high description. When lawmakers demanded a clearer picture, Senator Lindsey Graham announced the end of the meeting, though some had not yet questioned it.

"When things started to get heated, Graham said 'hey, shouldn't you ask the White House again?' and stopped the meeting, "one person told.

For Senator Tim Kaine, the problem is not with intelligence but officials who interpret the information. "I think intelligence is heavy. But some politicians have exaggerated the information," Kaine said. "What I hear from politicians seems to go beyond what intelligence shows."

Congressman Mike Quigley, a member of the House Intelligence Committee who was provided with confidential information about Soleimani's murder, did not see the risk of an "imminent" attack as described by White House officials. "Overestimating intelligence is a dangerous act," he said. "They misinterpreted or were incompetent in intelligence analysis."

Senators are dissatisfied with the way government representatives, including Pompeo, answer questions about Iraq and its parliamentary vote to demand that the United States withdraw after Soleimani's murder. Government representatives ignored the question of the vote, telling lawmakers "no need to worry". One of them asserted, "Iraqis just say so. We will solve this problem."

"When you carry out the attack in Iraq without their consent, you will definitely pay the price. And that is something that has to be scrutinized," Kaine said. "But I feel like they have not considered this issue carefully."

Trump told reporters on Tuesday that intelligence showed Iran "seeking to blow up the embassy". The next day, he said in an interview with Fox News that "there may be 4 embassies" targeted.

But two days later, on January 12, Trump's statement met with skepticism by Defense Secretary Mark Esper. In an interview on CNN's Federal Message program, Esper admitted to not seeing any "related to four embassies" intelligence. The Esper then emphasized personal belief rather than specific intelligence, saying that the President "believed embassies could be attacked".

According to two unnamed officials, Trump was disappointed that his "four embassies" were suspected. The president told his confidants that he was angry at the appearance of Esper on CNN.

Congressmen have called on the Trump administration to explain the President's comments. They also requested meetings with Pompeo and other government officials. The meeting was scheduled for this week but was later canceled for unknown reasons. According to two senior officials, Trump and Pompeo want to avoid answering more questions about the embassy threat.

After two weeks of the Trump administration making inconsistent statements about the killing of General Iran, Pompeo seemed to give the clearest answer to the administration's policy when speaking at Stanford's Hoover Institute on 13 / first.

"President Trump and the national security team are reestablishing deterrence against Iran. This is an arrow that has hit two targets. First we want to exhaust Iran's resources. Second, we just want Iran." act like a normal country, "he said. "Like Norway".