So your plan is to completely destroy their military using no soldiers and not fighting a war. Got it. Totally realistic.
Your inability to say what would constitute sufficient actions on Iran's part to illicit a response is duly noted.
Please do elaborate, and be sure to highlight the part where we specifically indicated we were giving them weapons to murder women and children in Yemen. Or consider your point refuted. Your choice. My reaction to this is independent of who happens to be President. Had Obama done this, I'd have the same reaction. To Dobro's point, yes, this is an 'escalation'. BUT it is also in response to a whole series of actions on Iran's part, and apparently due to intelligence that he was planning a lot more. I think that last part is key, although I think given the history, it would be justified anyway.
A fair post, as usual, Juan. No, I don't expect Iran to unilaterally de-escalate. Their whole purpose is to become the hegemonic state in the Middle East. Capitulation wouldn't play to that. However, neither would losing badly in a military conflict with the U.S. So, what I expect to happen (and what is already happening) is an increase in non military responses, using their proxies. Perhaps an increase in military responses from them...but I suspect not. So, agree on Iraq, that's already happening. Has probably been their playbook all along. As for the second, I think they'll be careful about what can be traced back to them. Very risky at this point. Me too. This is the real concern, IMHO. Worse relations between the US and Iraq works in Iran's favor. But the ones that seem upset with it where those being aligned with Iran already. So, not as if this swayed them any..just gave them a trigger point. Worth following what the others there think and do, though. Conversely, however, if we continued to allow planned terrorist attacks to occur, that wasn't helpful there either. Fair enough, but allow me to ask a follow on question: Would you not worry anyway, given all the terrorist activity and attacks on our embassy that he had been planning, and apparently was planning to escalate? The gist here is that at some point, strong action needs to be taken. Whenever that occurs, it is indeed an 'escalation'. There will always likely be arguments over the specific whens and whys and hows. They can only be judged in hindsight. So, we shall see. I DO think that some decisive action seemed to be needed here. If indeed Suleimani was planning a series of other attacks, likely the only way, or at least the most expedient way, to prevent those from happening was to take out the organizer.
I don't think completely destroying their military is the plan at all, in any scenario. Neither side wants all out war, least of all Iran. If you disagree, please elaborate on what Iran would gain from going to war with the U.S. Countries go to war to gain things. Given the huge advantage in military the U.S. has, and therefore how lopsided the 'war' would be...what does Iran have to gain from that? This is, and has always been, a high stakes game of chess. Actions and reactions all designed to improve one's position. Iran isn't going to take actions that degrade its position, and having the U.S. bomb all their infrastructure, which is what 'war' would look like, doesn't seem helpful to them. There are lots of military actions we could take that never involve any boots on the ground, and I don't think we want to get to a boots on the ground situation. But neither do I think it would ever come to that, without Iran doing something REALLY drastic. But it would have to be something that was deemed to only be addressable by actual invasion. I'm not sure I can even envision what that would be. Nuking Israel?
You are actually able to read my mind, over great distances, and without knowing me at all. [ ] Likely [✓] Very very unlikely
related: . . . Iranian influence will never be completely eradicated from its neighboring country with an overwhelming Shia majority. But Iran is also an adversary, albeit with a very limited area of influence. However, one way to stop Iran, which has not been tried, is a very old, forgotten art of bloodletting. It’s a grand strategy that was once taught to every rookie foreign policy wonk, when schools still focused on teaching amoral history instead of an ideological supposed end of history. Let Iran bleed. Let Iran overstretch, from Tehran to Tartous. Let them spend their own blood and treasure and impoverish their wealth maintaining security trying to dominate the massive Sunni population of Western Iraq and Northern Syria. Persians and Ottomans were the natural balancers of the Middle East up until 1919. Why not have that back 100 years later? https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/0...decades-of-foreign-policy-idiocies-with-iran/
Did you read the posts I was responding to? He is explicity detailing his plan to win a war against Iran.
This is a good, and fair, post...and helps explain your responses previously. You are worried this will lead to all out war (correct me if that is incorrect, please). Hence extensive loss of more Americans. I don't see that happening. Escalation, possibly...all out war, no. See other posts on this: What would Iran gain from an all out war? For that matter, what would we gain? It's not really a good outcome for either side. Were 'war' to actually happen, it would be bombing of Iranian infrastructure. Not seeing how Iran benefits from that, hence they will try to avoid it. What I expect to see, and what is already occurring, is using their proxy forces to cause more trouble for us. But I think they'll be careful, for a fair amount of time, of doing anything militarily that can be traced back to them. If they did, the next step up for us would likely be bombing their refineries, further crippling their economy, and taking out their ability to continue funding their proxies. How does Iran benefit from that?
Yes, I read it. I'm disagreeing with his assessment of what it would look like. Winning a war against Iran would involve an extensive bombing campaign. I don't see us invading except under very extreme circumstances. I can't really even imagine what those would be.
This is frustrating. The plan of his that you disagree with is exactly what you then advocate. Reapectfully, I'm getting the feeling that your are maybe a little distracted. The idea of destroying another country's military and winning a war via air power alone is unrealistic and has never happened in the history of warfare.
What’s mind boggling is these are the EXACT same people who just weeks ago were all high and mighty about how the only Dem they would vote for and we should all support is Tulsi Gabbard because she’s anti Middle East intervention. Now, just a couple weeks later, and a few FoxNews segments of talking points later, they are convinced that an assassination of the #2 official with the Iran GOVERNMENT that has led to 3,500 more troops being deployed to Iraq/Kuwait is a good thing we all should support because ... Merica. I kill bad guys!
I'm going to post this again. Ignore the silly sock puppet, that is their shtick. Obviously not a professional military assessment, but they are war nerds and they detail many of the practical issues.
Sorry for your loss in Iraq. If only someone would of leak the Presidents intention of the drone strike. The great man would still be alive today. Sorry for your loss once again.
Too many lives at stake. But as Ayatollah said Death to America. The rules of engagement will change, just for the ayatollah.
What are you talking about? The "thank you Trump" graffiti was apparently written over a year zoos to.
