Iran Situation

[Dill]

(01-08-2020, 02:59 PM)Millhouse Wrote: We take out someone orchestrating attacks against our people & others in the region that are foes of Iran, and that is way over the line of international norms? It wasn't like he was operating out of Iran, but in Iraq in which Iran is slowly trying to take over via influence thru Shiite dominence. It was a fair play.

We struck that guy down first, they missed with a few missiles then naturally lied about it, situation back to them chanting Death to America which they have done for decades.

Trump didn't handle it well by any means, hopefully has learned a lesson on use of rhetoric (doubt it though). 

Yes, Mill, way over the line.  I know you are no dummy. Let's set aside the numerous negatives for US national interest following the assignation of Soleimani (e.g.,we have united Iran, invited an anti-US insurgency within Iraq, frightened and disconcerted our Gulf allies and Israel, etc.) to focus on a few points about international norms/law.

1. Iraq is a sovereign country. We disrespect that sovereignty when we kill the general of a country partnered with them, an ally in their (and our) war against ISIS, on their soil without their permission. In doing so, we signal the world that we are not really about respecting international norms and rule of law. Where we have the power, we will do what we want. This is an especially bad move when, so far as the US Command is concerned, we need Iraq in order to monitor/operate in Syria and to hold down the northern end of the Gulf in the current conflict with Iran. If the US wants effective sanctions against Iran, then Iraq may be the most crucial player, as without the US presence, Iraq can easily sell its oil through a cooperative Iraq. It is also part of a pattern of disrespect for international norms, which in the ME context includes trashing the Iran Deal.  We break things now. We don't fix them.  

2. Soleimani was "operating out of Iraq" you say. But remember that the US is also "operating out of Iraq" to harm Iranian interests. Your stated standard, unless you are assuming a double standard, would make our generals legitimate targets for Iran, but it has so far chosen not to go that route. So viewed more neutrally, outside the US media frame, the US is also equally "orchestrating attacks" against "their people" everywhere in the region. And we would certainly call it a "terrorist attack" if Al Quds took out one of our generals in Iraq or Afghanistan--or for better comparison, while he was in a neutral state like Qatar or Jordan.

3. Building on point 2, regarding the status of Soleimani, we, and the rest of world, distinguish between state and non-state actors, between official representatives of sovereign nations and charismatic leaders of insurgencies and political movements, including terrorist groups.  The former REPRESENT states, making attacks on them an attack on a state. Just as we respect the embassy officials and grounds of other states as matter of convention--even when they are adversaries--so do we respect their officials.  Iran went against international norms when Iranian students took over the US embassy in 1979, and made itself an international pariah when Khomeini and the fledgling revolutionary government decided to back the move. We are similarly scorning international norms by assassinating a legitimate and high-ranking representative of the Iranian state--a general with whom WE were partnered only a few months ago--on Iraqi soil.

So in my view, this assassination and its aftermath are really ALL ABOUT the kind of international norms/laws we want the rest of the world to uphold with us and respect. Trump's views on this issue place him clearly outside the norm adopted by the worlds current "good guys"--e.g., Europe, Canada, Japan, and clearly in line with bad actors like Russia.

(PS the bolding is meant to single out central ideas in each paragraph for easier comprehension--not intended as shouting.)