CBS Lawmakers divided over airstrike killing Iranian military leader
FOX Pompeo on Qassem Soleimani strike: Iran now understands Trump will take 'decisive' action
VOX Killing Iran’s Qassem Suleimani changes the game in the Middle East. But has Trump really thought out what comes next?
I have no good answers for the mess that is the Middle East, though I think retaliating after a year of showing restraint was probably necessary.
I am a bit unsure about how to tell the difference between a "pre-emptive defensive strike" and "an assassination". Thoughts?
FOX Pompeo on Qassem Soleimani strike: Iran now understands Trump will take 'decisive' action
VOX Killing Iran’s Qassem Suleimani changes the game in the Middle East. But has Trump really thought out what comes next?
I have no good answers for the mess that is the Middle East, though I think retaliating after a year of showing restraint was probably necessary.
I am a bit unsure about how to tell the difference between a "pre-emptive defensive strike" and "an assassination". Thoughts?
39 comments:
If you're going to take a step like this, there better be a plan for what comes next. I have no reason to believe that the Trump Administration has such a plan, but I sure hope I'm wrong.
It's not a matter of words. Iran is carefully ramping up the pressure on Trump taking advantage of both his ego and his inexperience. This doesn't end well.
--Hiram
I guess my question is...
What would you have done different given Iran's continually ratcheting up their foreign activities?
Should the US just pull out of the region and leave the battles to Saudi Arabia and Israel? Thus giving Iran and Russia even more influence in the region?
President Obama may have been a bit naïve in his hope that Iran would be satisfied with becoming a successful normal country...
Shiite Crescent
General's Legacy
Trump's Comments
What would you have done different given Iran's continually ratcheting up their foreign activities?
Obviously, I wouldn't have given them the free hand we did by reneging on our agreements with them. Nor would I have tried to back them in a corner economically, providing them with a justification for reminding the world that they are in a power position too.
The Iranian leaders aren't stupid, and that gives them a big advantage over America.
--Hiram
"What would you have done different given Iran's continually ratcheting up their foreign activities?"
Why did Iran ratchet up their foreign activities? It appears to have been a response to our pulling out of the nuclear deal (even though Iran was in compliance) and reinstating sanctions.
I would have never pulled out of the deal in the first place, which would have dramatically changed the path of the last 18 months.
"Should the US just pull out of the region and leave the battles to Saudi Arabia and Israel?"
We're not going to have much choice. It looks like the Iraqis are ready to kick us out over this, and the Saudis don't want us having permanent military installations in their country. The Saudis are the #3 defense spenders in the world, and they were the source of most of the 9/11 hijackers and they killed an American permanent residence in their embassy. Maybe we should let them go it alone for awhile.
"Thus giving Iran and Russia even more influence in the region?"
The single largest factor in increasing Iranian influence in the Middle East was our ill-advised invasion of Iraq.
Sean,
I do not doubt that the fall of the Butcher of Baghdad help Iran.
However I did not see leaving him in place as a great idea either.
Now the reality is that Iran played Obama and never stopped working to cause chaos in the Middle East
It seems to be inherent in their Grand Leader's vision... God I hate the Religious Right...
It will be interesting to see if the Sunnis, Kurds and Moderate Shia's will fight to keep the USA in country?" We left once and it was a disaster for many Iraqis.
"Now the reality is that Iran played Obama and never stopped working to cause chaos in the Middle East"
The Iran Nuclear Deal was the Iran Nuclear Deal, not the Iran Good Behavior Deal. It was never meant as a comprehensive deal to limit Iran's other activities, it was only meant to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. This was made clear from the start, but you have fallen for the propaganda.
"The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled diplomacy. After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems; it certainly doesn’t resolve all our problems with Iran. It does not ensure a warming between our two countries. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. As such, it is a very good deal."
Remarks by the President on the Iran Nuclear Deal
Our president is now an assassin and a murderer. I would say that amounts to quite a change. A war criminal.
--Hiram
-
Sean,
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" was not comprehensive, was short duration, gave Iran back a lot of their money, etc.
I am not sure if it was good or bad... To me it was to give Iran a chance to become a normal successful country. Unfortunately they chose otherwise.
Hiram,
That would need to be determined in a court of law. If the General was actively working towards harming American citizens, Trump's action may be legal.
BBC Coverage
That would need to be determined in a court of law. If the General was actively working towards harming American citizens, Trump's action may be legal.
Certainly, in a criminal trial, Trump would be entitled to a presumption of innocence. But I have to say, the evidence against him is overwhelming. The question I have now, is whether Trump will be allowed to travel abroad where he will be subject to arrest.
--Hiram
Please provide a source for your opinion.
I sure don't know what is legal and illegal when dealing with Spy Leaders...
An expert on why the Soleimani assassination was almost certainly illegal
It seems like an assassination like this will be treated as legal, though I think it should be illegal. It seems like a war crime to me (though I know very little about war crimes.) I also think it is unwise and will definitely lead to more deaths and a chance of an all-out war.
"will definitely lead to more deaths"
How will we know now that Iran's master mind is dead?
For me, it seems there may be fewer if he really was as good and as powerful as they say... :-)
time will tell. give it a month or two (or even six.) They could also do a cyber attack.
The Dire Consequences of Trump’s Suleimani Decision
That was an interesting Opinion piece...
Though Susan Rice may be a bit biased given her past soft hand regarding Iran.
In truth though we will never know since Suleimani is now dead...
We have no idea how many would have died if he had lived on...
Even Susan agreed that he was a very bad man...
"In deciding to eliminate General Suleimani, Mr. Trump and his team argue they were acting in self-defense to thwart imminent attacks on Americans in Iraq and the region. This may be true, as General Suleimani was a ruthless murderer and terrorist with much American blood on his hands. "
I am not sure it was a good idea to give crazy religious zealots easy access to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. For just a pause in their nuclear program...
"Sanctions previously imposed by the UN, US and EU in an attempt to force Iran to halt uranium enrichment crippled its economy, costing the country more than $160bn (£118bn) in oil revenue from 2012 to 2016 alone.
Under the deal, Iran gained access to more than $100bn in assets frozen overseas, and was able to resume selling oil on international markets and using the global financial system for trade.
However, in May 2018, US President Donald Trump abandoned the landmark deal and in November that year, he reinstated sanctions targeting both Iran and states that trade with it."
I am assuming that can by a LOT of weapons and fund a LOT of terrorists.
I am not sure it was a good idea to give crazy religious zealots easy access to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. For just a pause in their nuclear program...
Well, now they have the hundreds of billions of dollars and the nuclear program too. As Trump himself says, Iranians never lose a negotiation.
==Hiram
Again. I don't have an answer for how to contain a country who is led by a religious zealot.
Constraining their finances and smacking their tentacles whenever they leave their country seems as good as anything.
Or I suppose we can withdraw and let Iran and Russia control the Middle East.
A big problem in politics is the urge to do something. But what always happens is the something is there to please a domestic political audience, and may no have an actual effect on the party to whom the action is directed.
We like economic sanctions because we perceive them as low cost. They don't seem to put our military at risk. This, of course, is short sighted and naive. Sanctions can be a prelude to war. Economic sanctions were a reason the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Our sanctions towards Iran are now escalating to the place we now are at, the brink of war.
--Hiram
Trump is a businessman, and as such is motivated by greed. He has a difficult time understanding that other people are motivated by other things.
==Hiram
Hiram,
What do you think the USA should do or not do regarding the spread of Shiite militias / terrorist organizations?
"To me it was to give Iran a chance to become a normal successful country."
This is interesting, and a standard you only seem to apply to Democrats -- the AppelenWorld standard where we're going to complain about the deal not accomplishing something it wasn't designed to accomplish.
"I am not sure it was a good idea to give crazy religious zealots easy access to hundreds of billions of dollars per year."
Well, perhaps, but you do keep voting for Republicans, so I'm not sure you're in any position to call that out.
"What do you think the USA should do or not do regarding the spread of Shiite militias / terrorist organizations?"
Again, this was all foreseeable to dirty liberal hippies back in 2003. Why it wasn't foreseeable to the people who had all these decades of experience, I can't tell you. But once the cat has been let out of the bag, you're gonna have to live with some amount of your furniture being scratched up. Or we can listen to all these same stupid voices that led us into Iraq that now seemingly want us to take on Iran (and reconquer Iraq again if we need to).
Hind sight is 20:20, no doubt. I don't think the hippies had a solution in 2003 either...
Well, maybe they were okay just walking away and letting the Russians have the mess.
Or anytime in the last 100+ years...
Not sure if they would protect Israel like many US citizens seem to feel is important.
"I don't think the hippies had a solution in 2003 either..."
The Iraq solution was largely already solved in 2003.
Please share...
Iraq had no WMDs. Sanctions were crippling the economy, which was still not back to pre-Gulf War levels. Much of the country was under a no-fly zone, which served to protect the Kurds and Shia from large scale retribution from Saddam's government. The situation was contained.
So your solution was to maintain the No Fly Zones forever.
How again was this a solution? (means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation)
And please remember that Israel and Muslim countries were getting really tired of that situation back then.
"So your solution was to maintain the No Fly Zones forever."
I've detailed my ideas numerous times in the past.
"How again was this a solution? (means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation)"
It accomplished the primary goals at an acceptable cost.
What we chose to do may have "solved" the Saddam problem, but opened up a whole bunch of new ones that we weren't prepared for
"And please remember that Israel and Muslim countries were getting really tired of that situation back then."
Sure, but the situation always has to measured against the alternatives. Who in the Middle East is better off because of the path we chose? It sure isn't us.
Perhaps Israel would like to put some of its troops on the ground in Iraq to help out if it's so concerned?
No Arab state would allow Israeli boots on their ground.
I really don't know if we are better or worse off. There has been no significant terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11... Keeping the war in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan seems to have worked out very well for us US citizens.
Here is a blast from the past
Post a Comment