I do not believe that Soleimani should have been killed. I do not believe that we should respond to the Iranians’ response. Sometimes it takes more courage to hold your fire than to fire.
However, if I were going to respond to the missile attack, I would degrade Iran’s command and control facilities systematically and then go after their oil production facilities, minimizing the loss of life while maximizing the damage to the Iranian economy.
“I do not believe that Soleimani should have been killed. I do not believe that we should respond to the Iranians’ response. Sometimes it takes more courage to hold your fire than to fire.”
That’s correct.
“However, if Iran does not stop completely after this initial missile attack (I were going to respond to the missile attack,) I would degrade Iran’s command and control facilities systematically and then go after their oil production facilities, minimizing the loss of life while maximizing the damage to the Iranian economy.”
Better.
This looks to me like an escalation to deescalate, especially since it seems that no Americans were injured or killed. Iran saves face, the US suffers no significant damage so it’s a good off-ramp, one I think Trump will take.
Still very early though…
That seems to be the popular view, Andy. “Ooops, we missed.”
“What you allow you encourage.†Or, an extension of that quote is, “What you allow will only continue.â€
The Iranians have been escalating their attacks for months. Under a U.N. ruling, Soleimani was not allowed to travel outside of Iran. But, here he was, coming in late at night at an Iraqi airport, on the heels of a vicious assault on an American embassy. This high ranking terrorist (General ?), unrestrained by adhering to any conventional international rules, with intelligence implying another attack was being engineered (“within daysâ€), was targeted and killed in what is being termed as a defensive act.
IMO, there were reasons to stop this terrorist, in his tracks, especially when an opportunity arose where Soleimani could be specifically taken out, with little loss of other lives. Clinton was offered such an option with OBL, but passed on it. In 2015 Israel had a bead on Soleimani, but Obama was pushing the JCPOA, so warned Iran about Israel’s intentions, foiling their plans.
However Iran responds, they will be doing so in an environment of disarray. Their mastermind, described as “the right and left hands of the Mullah, is out of the picture. Their people are unhappy with the current government, forced/cajoled to participate in Soleimani’s 3-day funeral by gunpoint or being offered a free meal. Iran’s economy is going south. And, evidence continues to emerge that Iran was not abiding by the terms of Obama’s ridiculously benign nuclear agreement, making their current threats to ditch it seem shallow.
I personally think Iran will be weighing their responses gingerly, being that Trump is seen as a foe who doesn’t react as docilely as Obama did – i.e. releasing billions of dollars to them, giving room and assets to terrorize others etc. Iran’s airstrikes today, even could have been done more as a face-saving measure, rather than exacting a fatal blow to the US military bases. Supposedly, this angle is being considered during ongoing discussions orchestrating a US response to Iran’s response.
BTW, people should tune into Lara Logan, a war correspondent with personal, anecdotal stories of the atrocities committed by Soleimani, as our liberal media appear to commemorate his passing in almost heroic, statesman-like language.
“Ooops, we missed.â€
They used very inaccurate weapons with an accuracy of 1/2 a mile or more. Since they only fired 15 at al Asad, hitting something important was a matter of luck.
You can take the off ramp and seize the olive branch of randomly aimed missiles. But they won’t stop or reverse course. Nuclear tipped missiles half a mile off course still won’t miss.
That’s just an illustration of the risks of our having troops in the Middle East.
It’s another subject but your point about “nuclear-tipped missiles” is why I think the possession of nuclear weapons isn’t insurance for the Iranian mullahocracy but its death sentence. We are not their only enemy. They are surrounded by them, none of whom will tolerate living with an active nuclear threat. Certainly Israel can’t. The Israelis want us to take the mullahocracy out for them but if we demur the Israelis won’t back away from nuking Iran, possibly killing millions.
But they’re not the only ones. I doubt the Saudis will tolerate an Iranian nuclear threat, either.
Khamenei said the U.S. should leave the region, adding “Military action like this is not sufficient. What is important is ending the corrupting presence of America in the region,†Reuters reported.
So, now that Khamenei has put his finger on the root cause of violence in the middle east, and Colin Kapernick agrees, it should be easy to do the right thing and disengage from our commitments there and come home. Then the US will be blamed for the results of that too.
Andy/grey – My understanding is that they are perfectly capable of hitting the mark if they choose. This makes it likely this was a show, not a real attempt. Which is why a) I think taking out the general was worth it (he has killed so many and would not stop) but b) agree with Dave, and most other sane commenters, that a military and economically devastating response would be in order should Iran persist, attempting at least to minimize civilian casualties.
Now we have this airliner going down. Total uncertainty there. But generically, if Iran gets stupid and starts suicide bombing in shopping malls, car bombing in front of western assets or shooting at planes etc they had better hit the “send all†button because the response will be devastating. I don’t think they are that stupid.
The difficult case is tit-for-tat. But then again, that’s been going on for decades.
I don’t think it’s entirely under their control. The more they stoke the fire, the more likely it is that some half-wit is going to do something.
What needs to happen is that all parties need to dial it back. I honestly doubt that will happen which is why I think conflagration is likely.
Yes, a half-wit or a zealot. But for 40 yrs it hasn’t been half-wits or zealots, it’s been calculating cold blooded terrorists. Let Iran police it’s own. They have influence. And if they can’t……….bad and messy situations don’t end like syrupy TV shows. Make it quick and decisive. But allowing a slow blood letting go for decades is no less messy.
A surprisingly muted response, with no American casualties. Let it pass. If Trump chooses to retaliate, then the tit-for-tat cycle is on.
Even with degraded command and control and no navy or air force to speak of, Iran can still close the Strait of Hormuz for a few months to a year or so. That 20% of world consumption and 40% of EU consumption. The result is a major world recession or perhaps a depression.
It should be noted that the mere threat to attack oil tankers would cause the maritime insurance companies to cancel all insurance for ships operating in the Gulf. The owners will simply keep the ships away.
Also note, we would have to cover some of the oil shortfall with our own production, at least if we want an alliance system. That sharing would result in serious fuel rationing here in the US.
The Russians haven’t been securing and extending their pipelines for the fun of it, you know.
Trump hit exactly the right tone in his address. Now let’s see if Iran is stupid, or if zealots and half-wits are hell bent on Iran’s destruction.
If this ratio of the Iranian population is correct, then 70% is secular versus the 30% who is composed of the theocratic ruling class. With Soleimani out of the henchman driver’s seat, the general secular populace may find the courage to rise up, improving their lives by choosing a government spending money on them rather than mainly terrorist activities.
Turning attention to our own government, I wonder how low democrat spokespeople can go in their constant disparagement of anything derived or occurring under the last 3 years of R governance.