If the Iranian response ends up being the recent rocket barrage on US bases, then in the end didn’t the US come out ahead? They took out an effective field commander, quite apparently the most capable Iran has to offer, and lost some buildings. The idea that the damage to US-Iranian relations is incalculable, presupposes that these relations were not already at or near an absolute minimum.
The idea that this assassination was beyond the pale is questionable too: this was a military officer actively engaged in leading operations against the US and its allies, and in the past directly responsible for deaths of US military personnel in a conflict that is obviously not yet concluded. Violating Iraq’s sovereignty is a bad act, but Iraqi sovereignty is being routinely violated by all kinds of state and non-state actors.
Now, first off, it is entirely possible to have a positive outcome even after bad decision-making, and secondly, calling this a “win” can only happen in a situation of hindsight where DC is not still dealing with the aftermath of a suitcase nuke, rather than some telegraphed rocket attacks on apparently carefully selected bases.
But that said: prima-facie - and disregarding the author - couldn’t this be called a win?
Because it was ordered by Trump, it is immensely suspicious. It might have been strategically a good move, but it will be hard to ever determine that for sure. It also might have just been a Wag the Dog attempt with no real value.
No matter what, assassinating him in this way is hard to take. I do think it is safe to say US-Iran relations are terrible and this made it a little worse.
There’s no way to evaluate this kind of thing in the short term. We’ll see in the long term, but I find it highly unlikely that an incompetent, dishonorable, irrational clown just happened to stumble upon that magic unilateral military action in the middle east that is an overall positive.
If Soleimani absolutely **had **to be killed, a drone strike was too overt. Perhaps it could have been done to make it look like natural causes and plausibly deniable, yet just that smidge suspicious enough that Iran would feel enough inward doubt and get the message.
Idk- there are two major non-Kurdish factions in Iraq - the Sunni would like us to stay, the Shia by and large don’t. The Shia being in the majority and also finally in charge means we are already there at best on sufferance - and the US presence in Iraq is a subject on which some on both the left and the right agree that they’d prefer there weren’t one. Also, if you are in armed conflict at whatever level, which in Iraq we had been with Iran proxies at the least, any action has the risk of danger to your personnel.
The logic of your somewhat tortured analogy is indeed grotesque. Rape is a serious violation, misuse of the word or using it in imperfect analogies can in time make it even easier for people to ignore or minimize what it is, something I prefer didn’t happen.
Had you used any other form of analogy, I’d answer that we are at this very moment violating Iraq’s sovereignty, and that a number of other actors are doing the same. Meaning the drone strike doesn’t change this or add a new aspect.
It is possible that killing Soleimani will end up being beneficial to American’s interests, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a stupid reckless thing to do. Successfully drawing to an inside straight after going all in doesn’t make you an expert poker player.
To be sure - if DJT has three of these in a row, the only possible explanation for me would be that that “Mission Impossible” face-mask identity swapping technology has obviously been perfected and is in use as we speak.
I think this is one of those “broken clock is right twice per day” things. Of course, there were still problems, such as the destruction of the US/Iraqi relationship right when the US would love to have troops in countries that neighbor Iran (such as Iraq).
There’s worry that the downing of the Ukrainian flight in Iran (which had lots of Canadians aboard) might have been an accidental attack against what they thought was a US bomber. Given the hyperventilation and lack of hard knowledge, I’m not willing to buy that just yet. But it’s a possibility. Iran is refusing to give Boeing access to the downed plane, and it might be hard to get the bodies back given the lack of diplomatic relations.
I think it’s really difficult to kill someone and make it look like natural causes. Making matters worse, Soleimani and/or his security team would be at least somewhat paranoid.
They have a new chef? No they don’t. Poisoning a general is supposed to be difficult. They have a new computer technician? No they don’t. They didn’t want Soleimani’s assistant’s cell phone giving a “here I am” signal to American intelligence officers. Soleimani’s doctor is acting strange? Get rid of him, permanently. They don’t want Soleimani asking for a Tylenol to get rid of his killer headache and ends up killed instead. Killing Soleimani would have been as hard as getting Fidel Castro. Sure, the US could have just fired a guided weapon when he was giving an hours long speech, but instead they tried to poison his shoes. That… didn’t work.
It’s tough being a Trump hater (or, to take the longer view, “It’s tough seeing Trump’s true nature”).
You find yourself torn: If the economy tanks, it’s better for voting him out. But good people will suffer. If we kill Iranian generals, it could make Trump look like a Commander-In-Chief. But the world might be a better place.`
If killing high ranking Iranians made the world safer and better, you’d think we would have tried it before. I suspect we haven’t, because assassinations generally have all kinds of unpredictable blowback, the vast majority of which will turn out bad.
There’s no reason to think Iran will back down. They’ll just send in a new general to do the same job Soleimani was doing. And there are plenty of Americans Iran can pick as targets whenever it decides to retaliate for our killing an Iranian.
Iran is already having military exercises with China and Russia. If we threaten Iran, they’ll just strengthen their ties with those countries, both of which will be happy to expand their influence in the Middle East and encourage local regimes to oppose the United States.
I won’t say it’s impossible that this might somehow turn into a gain for American interests but all the evidence says we lost in this incident.
What was uniquely bad about this general that wouldn’t apply to anyone Iran could replace him with? Because, for killing Soleimani to be a win, we have to have actually dealt some sort of blow to Iran, and killing one person is rarely a big blow.
Also, remember we and Iran were at peace at the beginning of Trump’s presidency, and he blew that up. So he’s already at a net loss.
Sure, Iran isn’t (currently) nuclear, so it’s likely that the blowback to the US won’t be World War III bad. But it doesn’t mean we didn’t just harm our interests in the Middle East by completely cutting of our ability to make peace with these guys.
Remember, that’s the goal: peace in the Middle East. Not destroying our enemies in the Middle East.