Me either, but agree I don't like it. Would hurt us more than it would them, AND its just bad for historical reasons too. Recall all the flak we gave ISIS for the sites they destroyed. Those are simply not replaceable. Not sure what sites Iran has, but sure there are some. They are one of the oldest civilizations on Earth.
Iran has some very important cultural sites that are not just part of Iran's cultural heritage but the World heritage. I've studied Persepolis which was the capital of the Persian empire. The Imam Shah Mosque at Isfahan is a major architectural achievement.
It's hard to contemplate because my preferred course of action has always been to de-escalate with Iran, so tearing up the nuclear deal was a step in the wrong direction, the economic embargo doubly so, and the attacks on our assets in the area precipitate from those actions. I don't particularly appreciate rocket attacks on our people or breaching our embassy or the earlier clashes in the strait, but none of those things would have happened if we'd stuck to the original deal. So now we're going to make preemptive strikes and assassinate leaders to double-down on a bad plan. I was already worried about where our conflict with Iran would take us, but it was within our own power to change course. Trump just took the steering wheel and threw it out the window. Even if Tulsi Gabbard became the next president, I don't know if we could avoid war.
Cultural attacks = talk. The attacks would be against strongholds, transportation centers, oil reservoirs and fields etc. Would be economic , to get to that point Iran would have to make a series of poor decisions .. nuclear related .. and they would be done for the rest of the century.
Sounds like someone doesn't really care to follow about what American assets have been attacked by Iran and Iran backed militia's in the past decade .. might want to ask Obama before proving your ignorance.
I hope that is correct (and think it likely is). Attacking targets with no military or economic value, but huge cultural value, would be a mistake, IMHO.
He is not going to hit cultural sites. He said that to scare them. We will more likely wipe their navy off the face of the earth.
Fair answer, but again, I don't see this leading to war. I suspect it will decrease military actions against us, at least for a fair amount of time, although likely increase non military actions. There have been various sources comparing Suleimani's actions against us as on par with UBL's. Assuming that those are correct...does that change your opinion here? There is the significant difference in UBL being stateless, whereas Suleimani was definitely part of the Iranian state...but then again, I think that is also precisely why it will cause Iran to rethink some of its activities. ie, simply being part of the state is now the danger, not the get away free card.
First, I have voted for as many Republicans as Democrats in my lifetime. You continue to see every thing completely partisan, I have pointed it out in the past. No, the "liberals" are not the only one that cannot have a mature conversation. Nor are the "Republicans" the only ones that have historically hated everyone different than them. Second, concerning Presidential powers, are you happy with the decrease in personal freedoms over the last 20 years? Are you supportive of the increased Presidential powers over that same time period? Are you going to be every bit as supportive when a far left President is elected and exercises those same powers and exploits the system? Also, please tell me when a US President has willfully not told Congress that he is going to assassinate the top military general in a third country. Further, the President had informed Lindsay Graham "days before" and had the leader of the Republicans in Congress staying with him in the days leading up to the assassination. There are also reports that Trump had informed Putin that he would be assassinating Soleimani before the attack. Last, as far as I can tell, Iraq wasn't even aware the attack would take place. You fail to see the problem with this from a larger perspective? This is regardless of whether it was a good idea (which is certainly debatable). I had a problem when Obama used a drone to kill a US citizen overseas without a trial. Many (not all) on the left cheered the attack because we killed a bad person. At least in that case he was not a military leader or soldier of another nation. Still, it was not right. It was not constitutional IMO and it set a poor precedent.
Again partisanship blindness. There isn't really any question that objectively Donald Trump has lied often. Do you trust him? That is up to you but there is lots of evidence to point to that would lead people to question his honesty. He is at the Nixon and LBG level. This really means nothing...... it is empty. It is as empty as me saying "Responding to ever transgression has never been a path that has been successful." Also there is no consistency to the foreign policy under this President. The President did nothing when North Korea killed an America citizen. In fact, not long after that the President praised the North Korean dictator as being loved by his people. So should the President have unilaterally decided to assassinate the head of the military in North Korea or the President of North Korea? When Saudi Arabia killed Jamal Khasoggi the President did not do anything about this "transgression", other than sell more arms to the Saudi family.
Well over the last couple years under this President: The President backs out of the agreement under the Obama administration. The President claims he will get his own deal with Iran. Iran responds that they already had an existing deal and will only honor the agreement that was in place. Trump increases sanctions on Iran in an effort to force them to negotiate without success. Iran increases proxy attacks on US interests, specifically in Iraq. Iran forms an alliance with China and Russia, and have conducted joint training activities in the Middle East. The President send the order to assassinate the top Iranian General while he is in Iraq. The President never got permission from Iraq for the attack, but the attack is successful. Iraqi Parliament votes to expel the USA and remove ALL troops in Iraq. The President says he will send 3,000 additional troops to the region. The number grows to 3,500 troops in the region. Russia, France, Iraq and many other nations condemn the assassination and claim it is unconstitutional. Iran states they will no longer limit nuclear production. Most experts believe that the USA has now lost any influence in Iraq, and Iran and Russia and China now are the major influences. Now....... one could argue that Trump wanted the US completely out or any role or responsibility in Iraq and that is what he has done. The US forces will have no choice but to leave Iraq and Russia and China and Iran can deal with it. That Iran was going to have nuclear capacity regardless so lets get even and get out. Time will tell.
The US is priming the public. It will cut off the straight of Hormuz to pressure China which is threatening to cut off the south china sea... this is a chess move.
There is no question about it's importance and it is true that Iran and to a lesser extend Syria and Russia have been attempting to sabotage or limit US control of the area. However I don't think that assassinating the head of the military in Iran was necessary, especially with Iraq wanting to expel the USA, which only weakens US influence in the area. Edit, just to be clear, I believe that US policy under both Obama and GWB was dreadful. I don't even think it is debatable.
I guess we'll see. Aside from the issue of being stateless, we were also in a declared and active war against Al Qaeda. They were already maximally provoked to be hostile to the USA and its allies, whereas Iran was still trying to maintain the nuclear deal with our European allies and had been refraining from overt confrontation We were not in some negotiation with AQ like we ostensibly are with Iran. And we had all our allies on board against AQ, but we go it alone (with our friends' vocal criticisms) vs Iran. And we honestly didn't care if every member of AQ died (they don't represent anyone who isn't themselves complicit), but we presumably don't want bad things to happen to the innocent Joe Blows of Iran. As for the stuff Suleimani did -- those are things really Iran did, and he was the agent so I don't have any personal feelings toward him. No more than I'd blame a US general for executing on a drone strike ordered by the president. If he conducted attacks we have a problem with, our problem is with Iran and not a person. And of course, the genesis of all that conflict is complicated and goes back decades and more of the guilt probably rests on the Americans than it does the Iranians. Well, when you put it that way, Trump's Iran policy does look like a disaster.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/soleimani-anti-imperialist-hero-200105211451136.html Soleimani is no anti-imperialist hero And Trump's reckless decision to assassinate him will not result in 'World War III'. by Malak Chabkoun 17 hours ago Anti-war protesters gather near the White House to condemn the US air strike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, in Washington, on January 4, 2020 [Reuters/Jan Wolfe] Immediately after news broke of the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, some left-wing circles in the West proclaimed with great confidence - yet again - that World War III was around the corner. Previously, these same warnings of global doom were evoked when US President Donald Trump ordered rather toothless strikes on empty military targets in Syria and escalated his rhetoric against North Korea's Kim Jong Un. And just as a world war did not break out on these previous occasions, it will not break out now either. Much of the left in the West (the same ones who describe themselves as progressives) also viciously attacked people in the Middle East who celebrated the deaths of Soleimani and al-Muhandis. While it is wrong to praise Trump's decision to assassinate the two commanders as a "noble deed", framing what happened within the old, tired left-wing narrative of US imperialism erases the regional context and the suffering of millions of people in the Middle East at the hands of other powers. Indeed, it is important to expose Trump's recklessness and political opportunism, but it is inexcusable to ignore the crimes of Soleimani and al-Muhandis and those whom they served. Trump's motives With an upcoming impeachment trial in the Senate, more Americans disapproving than approving of his presidency, and an election coming up, Trump is trying to cement his position in US politics and play to his base. His term has been marked by no clear domestic or foreign policy agendas, frequent golfing trips that prompt ethical questions about how federal dollars are being spent, and Twitter meltdowns that often do not have anything to do with reality. In short, when Trump ordered the assassinations, his presidency would not necessarily be described as successful. While it is clear the US president was motivated by domestic considerations, in the aftermath of the attack, he claimed that he ordered it in the name of fighting global "terrorism" and that Soleimani's assassination meant his reign of "terror" was over. This rhetoric might help him improve his ratings in advance of his re-election bid in November, but it is simply a lie that Soleimani's assassination will make the world a safer place. In fact, none of Trump's interventions in the Middle East has been of any consequence to the security of the region, contrary to what many on the right have claimed. People in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere where Soleimani's Quds Force has been active will continue to suffer the consequences of Iran's foreign interference. Al-Muhandis' death and the limited attacks the United States has carried out on the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMFs) will not disband the militia, which is heavily entrenched in Iraq. Similarly, the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the ISIL (ISIS) group did not make the region any safer from "terrorism". ISIL attacks have continued, and Russia and the Syrian regime have also continued to use the excuse of "anti-terror operations" to step up their military campaigns against civilians opposed to Bashar al-Assad's rule, killing hundreds and displacing hundreds of thousands. Trump's 2017 and 2018 air raids on Syrian regime targets did nothing to prevent the sustained campaign of extermination Damascus has led against its own population. They also did not result in World War III or war with Russia that some left-wing pundits were predicting on social media. In fact, throughout his term, Trump has been playing both camps - the right-wing hawks and the left-wing "anti-war" crusaders - with his constant shift of rhetoric between withdrawal and disengagement from the Middle East and aggressive action. He "pulled out" of Syria, but sent back troops to "guard the oil". He promised tough action on Iran after attacks in the Gulf but did not retaliate the way his allies wanted. It is about time that both sides admit Trump makes domestic and foreign policy decisions based on his ego and what suits him, not based on standing up for "our people" or some diabolic imperialistic plot.
Regional reactions in context The assassinations of Soleimani and al-Muhandis gave some Middle East residents a sense of relief that they have finally been rid of two militia commanders who have brought much suffering to their communities. But when Syrians, Iraqis, Yemenis and other Arabs posted celebratory comments on the assassinations of two commanders they perceive as war criminals, Iran's defenders immediately criticised these people, resorting to insisting they didn't know anything about their own countries, claiming they are pro-imperialism. In so doing, these self-identified leftists and "anti-war" activists once again downplayed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the region. For them, the only civilian deaths that can be acknowledged are those caused by the military intervention of the US, Israel or their allies. However, it is hard to cover up the crimes Iran and its regional proxies have committed over the past 10 years. Iran has backed and even advised on the brutal crackdown by the Syrian regime on opposition protests and later the mass killing of civilians through areal bombardment and merciless sieges; it has also sent Afghan refugee children to fight on its behalf in Syria. It has sent military equipment and personnel to the Houthis in Yemen, who just like their enemies, the Saudis and the Emiratis, have been accused of committing war crimes in the Yemeni conflict. In Iraq, they have supported and directed militias which have committed various crimes against Iraqi civilians. In this sense, it is hardly surprising that Syrians who have gone through the trauma of losing friends and family in the siege of Aleppo and the insult of seeing images of Soleimani marching through their city (which they may never be able to return to) are celebrating his demise. It is also hardly surprising that Iraqi protesters, who have had to drag the bodies of friends shot in the head with Iranian military-grade gas grenades during attacks by Iranian-backed militias on their demonstrations, would now be cheering the demise of al-Muhandis who had been accused of directing the crackdown. These same left-wing people who proclaim concern about foreign intervention, refuse to acknowledge the Iranian intervention in Syria, Yemen and Iraq when the people of those countries rebelled against authoritarianism, corruption, sectarianism, and socioeconomic collapse. When protests broke out in 2018 and 2019 in Iran against the Iranian authorities, they once again framed them in the foreign-sponsored regime-change narrative. The constant need to defend the Iranian government, even against the protests of Iranian people who have suffered under this government, is an exercise in mental gymnastics. This is the same left-wing segment that equates criticism of Iran with being an ally of Israel, which is highly problematic given Iran and Israel are committing the same crimes in the Middle East. Only US imperialism exists? There has been much noise about US's breach of Iraqi sovereignty, but there has been little said of Iranian and Russian actions violating sovereignty in the region. The constant presence of Soleimani in Iraq to issue orders to Iraqi officials and forces is just one of many signs of Iran's lack of respect for Iraq's sovereignty. By the admission of these same leftists, Soleimani was intervening in Iraq to "fight" US intervention. In Syria, what these self-proclaimed anti-war activists see as Iranian and Russian deployment at the invitation of a legitimate president, Syrians see as an occupation allowed by a dictator who they never elected in free and fair elections. The debate around Soleimani and al-Muhandis' assassinations has served to illustrate, once again, the inconsistent perception by a segment of the "progressive" left of what constitutes "imperialism". They readily brand US and Israeli actions as imperialist; yet aggression by others - whether Russia, China, Iran or their allies - which causes equal damage and civilian deaths, is ignored, downplayed, or wrapped in "anti-terror" narratives (rather similar to the ones the US and Israel use). Thus, US and Israeli attacks on the Iranian forces or the Assad regime have been decried as acts of imperialism while the mass killings of Syrian civilians by occupying powers Iran and Russia have been ignored, questioned or presented as "terrorist" deaths. Criticising the US and Israel while ignoring the crimes of others, however, does no good for the people on the ground bearing the brunt of geopolitical battles between these global and regional powers. Crying "World War III is coming" every time the US engages in aggression also ignores the fact that millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, where US, Israeli and also Iranian, Russian and Chinese intervention have stirred conflict, are already living the realities of such a war. Being truly anti-war would mean opposing aggression by all and condemning all those accused of war crimes - whether Qassem Soleimani or Eddie Gallagher. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
If the US cuts off the Strait of Hormuz it will do far more damage to US allies in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia than it will to the PRC. This is one reason why Iran has threatened to cut off the Strait and the US has threatened retaliation if the Iran did.
No, I disagree... wherever you heard that... well.. it's simply not how things are there. First, this helps the Saudis by eliminating competition and raising the price of oil. We are not blocking our allies. I mean we would block Iran in the straight. Everyone else would be fine to pass. Mainly, we would damage Iran which is bringing the cost of oil down, and China which is not an oil producer and in desperate need of energy resources. Russia and the US will step in to sell energy to our allies in the EU so this is also not a concern. Iran and China both lose if we blockade them and sink their naval forces or just stop them in the Straight of Hormuz. Very small area and easy to control. War is not needed when you can hold this position. The Saudis would laugh too because their profits increase when the price of oil rises, but they could suffer short term with possible terror attacks from Iran and their backed militia. Also Israel and Turkey are getting in on pipeline games to Europe and don't like Iranian oil to the EU competing. They are already pushing against each other and are keen to lock in the gas resources in the Levant area. Simply look at the numbers of where China gets its oil and where Iran sends its oil. And see how Iran has already lost money and is sending less oil abroad. If we cut this off, they will have massive problems at home because their economy will be sunk, and this might in turn, spark a real revolution there. This is about a large geopolitical game playing out with energy at the core of things. Please remember, the price of oil jumped from all this Iran business earlier this year that set off in the Strait or Hormuz, after nearly falling off the edge and causing a recession because prices were too low for US production to be profitable. But not, well, we don't have that problem do we? You can honestly go look at the price of oil, see how it is about to fall below profitable levels, and a day or so before it was set to fall there, the Iran business started up. A further note on China... they want a road through the Middle East, including a pipeline, that would connect to Europe and a pipeline to connect to the Mediterranean Sea... Well, that's not going to happen now is it with all the chaos? They want us out of there so they can take over the region and get energy and we are trying to keep it crazy there to put a strangle hold on them geopolitically and stop them from pushing us from our Top position. This business is key to blocking Chinese ambitions and keeping them dependent on oil. This is simple to put together if you consider the needs of the countries, the resources, and the news that has recently happened in the region. Of course reading your post closely, it seems you think cutting off the straight is going to hurt us because Iran will? Iran lacks that capacity and this is just barking. We however can, and we can decide who comes and who goes. Obviously, this means Saudis are OK to come and go, and our allies. Strictly speaking, it is a blockade and a classic type of warfare that will likely occur at some point if this keeps ramping up. Over one fifth of the oil comes from this area and we are the Top naval power, and a Top oil producer. We are facing threats from China which is not the Top naval power and not an energy exporter... so you do the math on what cards we have and whether or not we play them or not. Should the US sit by and let China get its way on the world stage and take over as the main country that shapes the global stage or should we use our cards? I think the answer to that is easy.
