Iran Situation

[Dill]

(01-06-2020, 10:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Soleimani deserved to die. He (and his military machinations) have led to the death of thousands (if not more) civilians, including Americans. Especially if it's true that he helped orchestrate the attacks on the US embassy in Iraq, although that still seems to be an unconfirmed detail.

I would urge my liberal friends, especially those inclined to observe and analyze before judging, to think more critically about claims that Soleimani was "responsible for/planning American deaths" in any sense other than military leaders generally are/do.  I'll add that the designation "terrorist" was already problematic before 9/11 (i.e., operated via double standards).  By 2007 it was politicized to the point of uselessness as descriptive term.  But the assassination of the general of a sovereign nation's military, with whom we were not at war, would even by 2007 standards be an act of terrorism.

(01-06-2020, 10:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The odds of this starting "World War III" are low, considering Iran has very few formidable allies and a ton of outright enemies. Iran + Iraq + Syria + Russia (If Russia even participates, which would probably be just defensive weapon assistance if anything) vs everyone else would not be a great war for them.

For that reason, I get the sense that most of Iran's retaliation will be in the form of terrorism or terrorist acts in America and other allied countries. We'll see how good the allies are at sniffing out and preventing those attacks, should they materialize.

I hope you are right, but I'm not certain the WW III odds are that low.  Countries would not necessarily have to be "allies" of Iran to take its side in the conflict currently shaping; the prime motivation could be to check US recklessness. China and Russia both would have an interest in doing that.  (By taking sides I mean drawing red lines, especially nuclear.) Also, Europe and Japan need Gulf oil, which a war would block.

Your second point also speaks more to the difficulty of containing conflict. Iran may proceed carefully (more carefully than Trump), possibly targeting a US official planning the deaths of Iranians, a mirror-image attack which will be "terrorism" if they are successful. I would not rule out attempted attacks on US soil, now that we are "safer," but I think they are certainly coming in other countries. Another possibility is ramped up proxy attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia, including oil facilities. Not to mention attacks or other threatening behavior toward Gulf shipping. And of course Trump will have to respond. Given the nature of the leaders of each belligerent, I don't see an off ramp here.

One last point, as escalation continues, should Trump decide to hit Iran's oil fields to put them out of condition, it would be very likely that Iran would put Saudi Arabia's out of commission. That would paralyze economies of many countries. The price of oil would go through the roof, affecting every consumer good in every country in the world. Some countries may blame Iran for the fallout, but likely they will also blame the US. Outside of the Fox audience, it is clear to the world that ditching the Iran Deal and ramping up sanctions and tensions in the Gulf has pushed us to the brink.

(01-06-2020, 10:26 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think the assassination was myopic though. I don't think this is a very similar situation to the Bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi kills. Both of those men were leaders of terrorist groups that, without a central figure, splintered into smaller and less effective groups (theoretically).

That won't happen in the Iranian government. It'll probably just be a "next man up" situation. Iran's terror network (or "covert forces" if you'd prefer) will not be affected that much by this assassination. I imagine it would be like someone assassination a US general. Sure, it'd piss Americans off a lot, but that General wasn't making sole decisions nor was he an isolated "head" of a snake, so to speak. Someone will be promoted to General afterwards and the machine will continue to run.

As it has been stated multiple times, both Bush and Obama had opportunities to kill Soleimani but did not. They likely decided that the unrest it would cause was not worth the incremental change in leadership in Iran's government/military it would create. It's surprising that Trump's advisers did not reach the same conclusion.

Totally agree with you here. It looks like Trump was upset by Iranian tweets and, when presented with a range of options, picked the most extreme.

Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi were charismatic leaders, whose organizations were built around personal authority. Solemeini, however, gifted, was still part of a military machine, a long-standing institution with replaceable parts. Killing him would not have stopped any "planned attacks" or whatever any more than killing General Schwarzkopf would have impeded the clearance of Kuwait in 1991. Most can see that killing QS increased the likelihood of retaliation, now elevated to a matching level of damage.

I am fairly certain that advisors with command and intel experience did conclude the assassination was a bad move. Trump does not follow professional advice--that is why Mattis, Bolton, and Kelly left.  If the US leaves Iraq, or reduces its footprint to a few hundred advisors, the Iranians have won an important victory. If the US does not leave, then we are likely in for another insurgency, more loss of blood and treasure. Still an Iranian victory. Trump is more dangerous now than in the first two years of his term. His advisors know that people who don't support his impulsive decisions don't last long, and he has motivation to drive impeachment from the news for cycles to come.