Key Iran General Soleimani killed in Iraq: reports - BBC

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
When Obama took out Osama that was justice; when Trump takes out Soleimani that’s a crime?
Click to expand...
Osama led a stateless, terrorist organization.
Soleimani was a leading general of the nation state of Iran.
The distinction is not the least bit subtle.
 
dvdjs said:
Osama led a stateless, terrorist organization.
Soleimani was a leading general of the nation state of Iran.
The distinction is not the least bit subtle.
Click to expand...
Osama led a stateless, terrorist organization. Soleimani led a state sponsored, terrorist organization. For those on the receiving end of their actions there was no significant difference. Trump has pretty clearly announced that this is a distinction without a difference.
 
Soleimani was the architect of Iran’s regional strategy over the last 20 years. He led the Quds Force, which some have described as equivalent to the French Foreign Legion, and a transnational Shiite expeditionary force that enabled Iran to spread its influence. Some have said that he was the second-most-powerful leader in Iran, after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Soleimani was behind getting Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias in Iraq to suppress the Iraqis who have been protesting Iranian influence in the country. Those protests had an enormous impact on Iraqi politics and forced Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s resignation in November. Soleimani also orchestrated the land bridge from Iran to Lebanon and propped up Bashar al-Assad’s power in Syria. I don’t think anyone knows if his successor (Brig. Gen. Esmail Ghaani) will be as effective, it could have a lot of untold consequences for the region.
 
A number of the articles discuss how even when bin Laden and Baghdadi went down, their organizations potency had largely been torn down, not so true with Soleimani and the IRGC, Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.

So, there’s a lot of balance to the conversation. Certainly though, Syrians seemed to think he created a lot of havoc, maybe even using poisonous gas and that’s where it gets pretty mean. Does one really want to defend someone like that?

And IEDs on American troops? And that’s the Washington Post speaking here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...witter&utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
His assassination is akin to an adversary targeting US militarily leadership.
Click to expand...
They are targets. These second world Terrorist states just don’t have the means to kill them.
 
Last edited:
His assassination is akin to an adversary targeting US militarily leadership.
Click to expand...
No, because then, this would say “don’t target Himmler, don’t target Goering”, I think most people would disagree with that. Don’t target someone because they are government. I think we’ve learned that lesson too.
 
niceatheist said:
That would be a de facto declaration of war, and would require Congressional approval.
Click to expand...
Could fall under the Global War of Terror. Still active, already approved.

Additionally, Trump can authorize any air strike he wants, he also has 89 days deploy troops and have them do whatever he wants them to before he has to ask for approval from Congress but as mentioned above this could fall under the Global War of Terror, which has already been approved by Congress.
 
Last edited:
What makes Iran a “terrorist state” anymore than the USA?
 
And our military have been capable of taking him out many times, in many places, for years. They just needed the green light and they finally got it. Hasta la vista, thug.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
What was Gadaffi?
Click to expand...
Obama and Hillary sanctioned the killing of a head of state. Crickets.
Trump sanctions the killing of a top general. Hue and cry.

Get over it, Obama lovers, Libya is very firmly on him and Hillary.

Military leaders have always been targets. Deaths of generals are relatively rare in recent wars as generals tend to be far behind the lines, but it still happens. US Major General Harold Greene was killed in Afghanistan in 2014, for instance.

But it is very standard military doctrine to prioritize finding the opposition military leaders at every level and vanquish them along with their command and control centers. That’s war. Iran’s been at war with us for over 40 years now. Obama tried a different tack, that turned out to be a failure. Compounded by Kerry’s blundering about behind Trump’s back as recently as 2018.
niceatheist said:
I’m not clear how Khamenei is in th corner. The loss of Soleimani is obviously going to hurt the regime, but realistically how badly? Soleimani had lieutenants, handpicked over the years, and like any general that dies, another will pop up in his place. I don’t foresee this as causing Quds any long-term damage. Iran isn’t some Banana Republic where if you take out a military leader, the whole thing just falls to the ground.
Click to expand...
Good question, glad you asked. Khamanei is quite squeezed between his hardliners’ desire for the stiffest response possible vs. the escalation threat that Trump made.

The Iran-Iraq War in the 1980’s was nearly a disaster for them. Since that time, the Iranians have always been about their own survival. Hence they almost always operate via proxies when outside of their borders. As this usually involves non-Persian factions with their own politics, Suleimani’s value to the Iranian leadership was the skill with which he could manage them both within and without Iran. As he was the leader for at least two decades, that implies he had the respect, the charisma, the ruthlessness, the experience and the strategic sense to do the job and to remain in the job. There are political rivalries in the Iranian leadership just as there are in most other countries. Suleimani survived them all.

As such, he will be very difficult to replace in the short term. Sure they have another name there today, but it will take awhile for that guy to truly assume the mantle of leadership as Suleimani did. Months, perhaps, if not years. It is possible that only Suleimani had the big picture in mind; it is possible that he did not share all the details with either Khamanei or his underlings. In the meantime, there are public statements that Suleimani got sloppy with his personal security. That could be a blame the victim thing; they might be busy right now trying to figure out how the US military knew he was there. Heads will roll if they find the leak. But while they’re looking for it, we can expect that to delay them to some extent.

Given how Khamanei’s taunt backfired, they’re probably going to step back and rethink their strategy as they were not expecting Trump to do something like that. We’ll find out soon.
 
Last edited:
Sort of like calling El Chapo an international entrepeneur or Al Capone a civic leader. 🤣
 
Well sounds like there are more air strikes going on again right now in Iraq and 5 more people are dead. Trump must have some intelligence…
 
He is being referred to as. “ revered leader” …
More like ding dong the witch is dead.Dancing with n the streets…
 
Regular_Atheist said:
He was a national leader. This is a fact.
Click to expand...
And so was Pol Pot, so is Kim Jong-Un for that matter, but that certainly is not the way I’d describe them. With a loose definition for national leader, that could include many people.

Kim would be a world leader I guess, but that wouldn’t be the first thing I’d think of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top