Iran Situation

[CJD]

(01-06-2020, 10:06 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

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.

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.

I think Americans are, by nature, desensitized to the imperialist actions of our government. Murdering members of another nation's military is just the next step up from being World Police.

The question I always had was how do you differentiate the Soleimanis from the Kims? Or the Putins? Or the Xis? Or, as Donald Trump famously said, even Americans? 
"There are a lot of killers," Trump responded. "Got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country's so innocent?"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/04/trump-fox-interview/97508274/

Americans aren't really fans of being compared to Putin (as Trump did in this particular quote). It's just another one of those quotes that you see and think "wait, and people still vote for this guy?"

But I digress. You're right that classifying a leader of a nation a terrorist is a risky business. But you also have to remember that we basically already did that in Iraq anyway. We decided that Hussein deserved to be killed/dethroned/removed because he was killing his own people (and because he tried to kill W's daddy). Which, to be clear, he was (a special note regarding the Kurds who, at least at the time, American leadership was sympathetic to. Oh, how the times have changed). I'm not denying that (nor am I denying Soleimani's actions). But that time, at least our government had the common decency to pretend that we did that to protect ourselves. Sure, it ended up being completely false that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they at least took the time to launch an investigation and everything. This time, the Trump administration didn't even put any effort into their reason for the attack.

White House: "He was planning an attack on Americans."
Media: "Oh seriously? Where? When? How many Americans?"
WH: "Don't worry about it."
M: "No, we're worried about it. You killed the planner maybe, but the plan wouldn't just evaporate because of that. Can you please give us more details?"
WH: "Nah. It's fine. You are better off not knowing."
M: "They just vowed vengeance on us. Can you PLEASE tell us who may be in danger?"
WH: "We. said. don't. worry. about. it."

All this based on alleged reports from the intelligence network that Trump has, repeatedly, claimed were biased and generating fake news (such as the Russian interference in our election).

I genuinely think that 2011 video of Trump saying Obama will start a war in Iran in order to get re-elected...is what's going on right here.
He saw it work for Bush in 2004, he was convinced Obama was going to do it in 2011. I don't think it's a coincidence that it is occurring right now. That may make me a cynic or a biased lib, but the pieces are all there and are so easy to put together. It's like a 4 piece puzzle.