Since Soleimani was killed in an “active war zone” (Baghdad), I assume Iran may invoke the same logic and target the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran could launch missiles (via its proxies) from within Iraq and possibly Syria, too, thus not justifying a retaliatory US strike directly on Iran territory. Or would it?
Would this be the excuse Trump was looking for to flat out destroy the Iranian military and leave Iran impotent for a generation? (I am not advocating anything of the sort, of course. Not only is not a long term solution, but it would guaranty fanatic, insatiable, violent anti-Americanism for generations.)
That inherently irrational and incompetent actor is, it’s increasingly clear, on his own on this one when it comes to the reactions of our allies:
[QUOTE] The United States’ main allies are abandoning Trump over his ‘dangerous escalation’ with Iran
[ul]
[li]The US’s European allies on Friday warned against further escalation with Iran after President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.[/li][li]The UK said that further conflict “is in none of our interests.”[/li][li]Germany also warned of a “dangerous escalation.”[/li][li]The US government decided to go ahead with the airstrike late Thursday without informing its European partners, which angered some allies, BuzzFeed News reported.[/li][li]“The purpose of having allies is that we can surprise our enemies and not each other,” Tom Tugendhat, the chairman of the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, told the BBC.[/ul]…[/li][/QUOTE]
More likely to stay Trump’s impulses: the fact that FoxNews hosts are actually divided on this topic:
Well if you believe Trump, he claims that the U.S. Has 52 Iranian targets already selected for attack if the Iranians attack the U.S. or any of its assets.
We’ve already established that the airstrikes have been pretty poorly received in Iraq, a place where the US still has 6000 or so troops and regularly exercises influence. We can assume that Iran’s militias may well decide to attack personnel there.
But since you mentioned our other allies in Europe and elsewhere, it’s worth pointing out that Iran could employ the tactics they were known for in the 1980s: attacks on Americans in Europe, which would inevitably kill Europeans. Wonder how popular the idea of hosting US military personnel would be then.
ETA: I guess it depends on he defines “Iranian”, though. They might have plausible deniability. I suppose it’s even possible that a third party could attack US assets in a hope to encourage Trump to obliterate Iran’s military.
You may be sure that a certain Mr. Putin has considered that scenario.
My theory is that Vlad has been counting on Donald’s dimwitted certainty that Vlad ‘cares about him,’ and therefore would give him only helpful-to-Donald advice. And, exploiting Donald’s dimness, recently Vlad has been telling him to Be Decisive! Attack a major Iranian target! Everyone will admire you and respect you!
Of course the reality is that if world opinion coalesces around the notion that the “imminent danger” excuse for executing Soleimani is bullshit, and calls for sanctioning the USA begin to gain traction, that will be a delicious development in Vlad’s eyes. ‘How can you keep sanctions on Russia in place when you’re in danger of being declared a rogue state yourselves!?!?!’
If the USA had to withdraw forces from those European bases, that would be an extra bonus.
But be honest, would you dare to predict the response of even a reasonable President in such a scenario? I mean, ok, nukes are off the table for a sane President. Otherwise?
I think it’d be a bit more likely to be accurate. If we got a Bush type (i.e. neocon), then we can expect escalation, or at the very least an “in kind” military strike response. If it’s Obama, then I’d expect an international coalition of stronger sanctions, and maybe some drone strikes on Iranian agents in Iraq and elsewhere.
Could the response (to any further “Iranian” attack and not just against the embassy), include the participation of Saudi Arabia? Or Israel? Both? And if so, to try to once and for all utterly devastate Iran’s military and its economy, and likely (at least a lot of) its potential to develop/deploy nuclear weapons?
ETA: The Saudi and Israeli populace hate Iran as much as anyone so politically I think it could be done by both.
There are some unsettling scenarios playing out in my mind.
Sure, but Iran has already gamed this out and the Israelis and Saudis - civilians - would likely pay a very heavy price. The Saudis in particular would have one hell of a shit storm on their hands as the Southeastern region of the country is known for Shiite anti-government activism (and terrorism).
The modern US has no allies, only clients and enemies, quickly changeable as needed.
This POTUS is wagging the dog, not his wee weenie. He fears his financials will soon become public, unarguably showing his treasons. Thus this diversion to avoid dying in prison. As combat ensues, the Senate trial for his removal will be shuffled off-stage. Expect the State of Emergency and Martial Law proclamations by or at the SOTU show. Look for troops surrounding Capitol Hill then. Dems and other dissidents will be rounded up right afterward. Are your affairs in order?
I doubt that a missile attack from Iraqi, much less Syrian, soil would be the Iranian response. They’d have to worry about the missiles’ reliability and accuracy as well as air defence. That would also be a pretty big signal that Iran is seeking escalate the situation rather than having tit-for-tat exchanges.
My expectation is that Iran will retaliate, but they’ll go against a smaller target, possibly a logistical base containing US troops or contractors. The most likely attack will be a rocket attack, and it will ostensibly be done by Iraqi militia forces loyal to Iran. These attacks, of course, would be directed and supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. After the attack, they’ll issue a press release saying revenge has been achieved, and then quietly accept a US, or US-directed attack against an Iranian supported militia base, thus returning the situation to the prior status quo.
If the attack was against the US Embassy, or rather the Green Zone, I’d expect it to be mortars, or suicide bombers against a checkpoint. Again, conducted through Iraqi militia and I’d expect enough damage that Iran could claim revenge, but not enough to escalate the conflict.
My guess is that Trump is on the fence on whether he wants to start Gulf War III. I’m sure he’d like to give a Iran a good swift ass-kicking. But he’s also probably scared of getting the blame if the US has massive casualties, or if something the US can’t control goes wrong. My speculation is that Trump probably thinks he’s in a winning position at the moment, and can wait for Iran’s move. Trump will probably be happy with small scale tit-for-tat exchanges. If Iran escalates, so will he. The US’s priority target will be the Iranian navy and naval bases, as well as any military installations close to the border with Iraq. The US’s biggest fear? An Iranian-backed Sunni revolution in Iraq’s southeast, led by Sunni militias but effectively run by Iran - and with a strong Iranian “peacekeeping” force to “protect our Islamic brothers”.
There have been several attacks on the US “Embassy” in Iraq. There was a rocket attack in May 2019 as I recall.
No, if they do retaliate it will likely be against a base,probably a smaller less defended outpost. They might try and kill a US General officer, if they want to go tit for tat.
:smack: Would you believe I actually double-checked and still got it wrong?
:smack::smack: Shia Islam is the predominant religion in Iran encompassing around 89% of the population.
:smack::smack::smack: Shia Islam in Iraq is most predominant in the southeast, which borders Iran and includes the city of Basra and Iraq’s access to the Persian Gulf. The Secular Roots of a Religious Divide in Contemporary Iraq | Origins (scroll down for map)
:smack::smack::smack::smack:All that and I still typed in Sunni. There’s obviously a problem with my chair-to-keyboard interface.:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
:rolleyes::smack: