No. It enhanced Iran’s international position and internal stability, hurt America’s position, and likely turned Iraq over to Iran all to kill a pretty old guy who likely wouldn’t have been important all that long anyway.
It also greatly increased the likelihood of assassinations against American officials. I doubt some senator or general who gets blown up by a car bomb will consider it a “win”.
There is no conflict. Iran and America aren’t at war. Sulemani was on a diplomatic mission, on a diplomatic passport, coordinating security with Iraq, and was most recently involved in the fight against ISIS.
“The idea that this assassination was beyond the pale is questionable too: this was a military officer actively engaged in leading operations against Iran and its allies, and in the past directly responsible for deaths of Iranian military personnel in a conflict that is obviously not yet concluded.”
Should General Berger (Marine Commandant) be worried? Does changing two words and the target actually change the action, or is it only heinous if WE’RE the one losing a general?
American seem to have this weird ass idea that if only they could take out the appropriate “bad guy” (as an aside, what is this, 3rd grade, "bad guy?, seriously) somehow everything will be hunky dory. And are amazed when that state of affairs fails to materialize.
Killimg Commanders of enemy entities is always a good tactic. It disrupts operations, lowers enemy morale and at a minimum forces the enemy to expend resources on force protection. But its a means to an end, not an end to itself. Exepting it to be is madness.
Unlike murder, apparently, which is A-OK as long as the murderer gets away scot free.
Could I get a fact-check on the underlined part? I thought we were fighting the Sunnis during the Iraq civil war, and isn’t ISIS a Sunni group, as was Hussein’s government? I would have thought, absent our saber rattling with Iran, the Shiites want us there to help out with ISIS and any remaining Hussein factions.
I do think that removing certain pivotal individuals can be worth the risk if they are that influential and powerful. Bin Laden was one such person, or (tired trope I know but) Hitler as his power was rising. Was this general that sort of person? I have trouble believing that even if what the administration is saying is true, that he was an “imminent threat”, would this stop that? The plans for whatever they were doing are in place and I doubt this reduces their will to carry them out, rather the opposite.
The only way I see this as a deterrent is if this illustrates that we knew what they were planning so they abort the plan, but surely there would have been a better way to do that. Such as publicly leaking just enough info to make it clear. Without making the US look bloodthirsty and reckless.
I have trouble believing that killing this one guy in all of Iran was so pivotal.
I don’t understand the legal justification for any killing in anything other than a declared war, but I get that the geopolitical landscape is such that this is now part of the “new normal”, regardless of my understanding or approval. So, the US has been killing people in countries we are not at war with, via drone, for years now- ranging from Yemen to Pakistan, Somalia, Libia and others. But this one killing, from the conversations, is seen as different. Apparently because of the possible response. My question is (was), then: out of all of them, isn’t this in fact one of the “wins”?
I gladly bow to better understanding , but mine is that while the Shia were arguably benefiting from the US fighting the Shia-oppressing Sunni Hussein, and the largely Sunni ISIS, at least a significant faction of the now-in-power Shia sees Iran (who also fought ISIS) as a natural partner - and would like to tell the US “thank you, you can leave now”
Well Iran wasn’t up for a direct war, so the absolute worst repercussion has been avoided. There are others already though, decreased American influence in the region/world, the Iraqi government uniting against continued US military involvement in their country, Iranian public’s response to the assassination. Also further dealings with Iran WRT nuclear research/development will be off the table for some time.
While the biggest loss seems to be avoided, nothing here is a win UNLESS there was an equally strong case for Soleimani’s immediate death. Of course Trump never made any case, nor did he explain how his actions further ANY of America’s goals or long term plans.
There seems to be no strategy employed at all here. Just a free “start war” ticket given to Iran’s leaders (which they declined).
What did we really win, though?
We killed a guy who ran a terror network, but we didn’t touch the terror network.
We put Iran on notice that we’re willing to assassinate that type of person, but we put everyone else on notice that we’re now OK with that kind of assassination.
We helped reinforce Iran’s sense that they need a nuclear bomb and should avoid all nuclear deals in the future. (And they are going to get a bomb. They already produced enough uranium for 10 bombs and the only reason they don’t possess that material now is they gave it up under JCPOA.)
So, if the Germans had managed somehow to murder Eisenhower a day before the invasion, D-Day wouldn’t have happened?
“We got all the boats, men, ammo and supplies all ready, but now the guy who was to give the order is dead! Well, shit!”
It is a win. We don’t know what intel was seen. Whatever Trump does it wrong in the left’s opinion. He could cure cancer and they would say, What about heart disease? Obama walks on water, he gave billions of dollars to appease Iran. Didn’t work.
Obama walks because he can’t swim.
Obama hardly walked on water you fucking moron, but if you think comparing the lying shithead Trump to Obama is even worthwhile keep living in your fucking land of bullshit. No President has been as big a buffoon on the world stage as this one. For any lie Obama told, Trump has told hundreds. Your post is pure garbage, the weakest of arguments as it has no content. But hey the economy is pretty good for the rich right now, so Trump is a great President, am I right?
nm
The Shi’ites are by no means a unified block, and there’s near-constant infighting and jockeying for power amongst them. They are, however, now at least temporarily unified towards the goal of expelling the Americans - through legal, political means, if the Americans follow the directives of the Iraqi Prime Minister and the Iraqi Parliament, or through violent resistance if the Americans choose to ignore them - all thanks to the murder of Soleimani. The last time Iraq asked the Americans to leave, they did. This time around, they might not. In any case, they now face a grim choice, all thanks to their own stupidity and short-sightedness.
Iran is a natural partner to Iraq. They’re neighbours, for starters, and share a long border and an even longer history. They’re co-religionists (as far as their majorities are concerned), and while Iran holds the shrine of one of Twelver Shi’isms Imams, Iraq holds the shrines of half a dozen or so of the others. Iraq has Karbala, for God’s sakes, and Kufah, not to mention Najaf - the centre of Twelver Shi’ism.
It is to laugh. “Largely Sunni”? It was, and is, exclusively Sunni. It had, and has, an uncompromisingly genocidal / eliminationist policy towards Shi’ites.
Don’t call me a moron, you bloody bastard. My opinion and I stand by it. Yep I’m getting rich while you wankers aren’t.
So it’s a win because we don’t know enough to know it wasn’t? That’s good enough for me! MAGA!
:rolleyes:
Thank you, you proved my point you ignorant shithead.