Key Iran General Soleimani killed in Iraq: reports - BBC

[niceatheist]

I see no reason to condemn Trump for this, but neither do I propose to criticize Obama. Obama tried the diplomatic solution, and he had strong support from Russia and from European allies. The problem here, simply put, is there is no good solution. Iran seems determined to achieve and maintain the status of regional power, and most certainly in Iraq it’s been playing a dirty game. Obama, Putin and other world leaders hoped that by trying to normalize, even in some limited way, relations between the US and Iran that these impulses, including trying to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities, would be restrained. I think Obama was wrong, but I don’t think he ever went into this with the desire to embolden Iran. And, by the same token, I don’t think Trump is either. The problem is that Iran is not governed by fools, and they have created a situation in which both the carrot and the stick end with the same result.

Frankly, I have no idea what the solution is. Iran, like North Korea and Russia, are intractable problems, and in all three cases, the ultimate solution, as unsatisfying as it feels, is containment. That could mean trying both the carrot and the stick at the same time, and that’s where I think repudiating the deal with Iran was an error. It was flawed, maybe fatally flawed, but repudiation without something to replace it, gave Iran exactly what it needed, that the Great Satan had picked up its pitchfork.

 

[mrad25]

I have no idea what the solution is.

The people of these countries need to decide that and rise up. Of course that’s easier said than done most of the time with brutal dictators. The US I think is trying to help in Iraq and maybe even in some way in Iran, but it is hard to know who can and can’t be trusted.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The people of these countries need to decide that and rise up. Of course that’s easier said than done most of the time with brutal dictators.

There are already currently strikes and protests against the Iranian government. Escalation of tensions by the USA will certainly kill that movement off - it will both increase nationalist sentiment in Iran and justify brutal crackdowns from the Iranian government’s perspective.

 

[flamingpuppet]

Revelation 14:14-20 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)​

Reaping the Earth’s Harvest

14 Then I looked, and lo, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat upon the cloud, “Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” 16 So he who sat upon the cloud swung his sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.

Bring it on, Lord. Maran atha.

 

[mrad25]

Escalation of tensions by the USA will certainly kill that movement off - it will both increase nationalist sentiment in Iran

I think in Iran there’s two sides, there are the nationalist who support the regime, not sure if it’s out of fear but there are a lot of brave people of Iran also who want a democracy for Iran.

The way to cripple the Iranian regime is through their economy (oil refineries and sales). When Iran retaliates I think Trump will respond by hitting those targets in Iran.

 

[Victoria33]

A pretty good read written by Mike Doran who has been a White House advisor for National Security. He’s actually a “Turkey-defender” and I don’t really care for that but otherwise, he seems like he knows his stuff real well.

Opinion | Trump’s Ground Game Against Iran (Published 2020)

The assassination of Qassim Suleimani is a seismic event in the Middle East.

www.nytimes.com

…

In fact, such a response was long overdue. I know from my own experience, as a former senior official in the White House and the Defense Department, that the United States had several past opportunities to kill Mr. Suleimani but each time decided against it. This restraint did not make the world safer. It only gave Mr. Suleimani more time to build his empire, and, moreover, it enhanced his mystique as a man with an almost superhuman ability to evade detection.

To no one’s surprise, Mr. Trump’s critics immediately accused him of needlessly provoking Iran, arguing that Mr. Suleimani’s assassination could lead to war. This is an analysis that ignores the fact that Mr. Suleimani has been waging war on America and its allies for years and was directly engaged in the planning of attacks.

The world to which we wake up today, rid of its most accomplished and deadly terrorist, is a better place. Nowhere is this insight more evident than throughout the Middle East, where individuals are posting joyous videos to social media, celebrating the death of the author of so much of their misery. We should all — even those among us who don’t particularly care for Mr. Trump — join them in their good cheer, and continue to repeal Mr. Suleimani’s murderous anti-American legacy.

This next video is from a few months ago, Doran is part of the “Hudson Institute”: The discussion doesn’t start until about 19 minutes in, until then, no sound.

So, he knows a lot. I’ll have to see if Hudson has any other recent videos. I found these informative.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

As long as Israel keeps provoking their enemies, and the US continues to endorse the land confiscations and giving them 4B in aid every year, and AIPAC controls our foreign policy, yes, the US president, whoever it is, will continue to use our soldiers to protect Israel.

Not to mention Saudi Arabia. Both the UK and the US are currently supporting a proxy war between Iran and Saudia Arabia in Yemen. This whole current situation between the US and Iran was partly started by missile strikes on a Saudi oil refinery, which the Saudis claim came from Iran. If anyone ever tells you that the USA should want to engage in conflict with Iran on the basis that it is an “Islamist” or clerical state, it would be worth asking why the USA continues to support the Wahhabi government in Saudi Arabia, and pointing out that this conflict is partly the result of the USA trying to defend their interests.

 

[niceatheist]

The problem is, of course, that Soleimani had his admirers in Iraq as well, due to the successes his operatives had against ISIS.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

The way to cripple the Iranian regime is through their economy (oil refineries and sales). When Iran retaliates I think Trump will respond by hitting those targets in Iran.

There are already sanctions against Iran, that’s basically how this whole thing started, and it’s the working class of Iran that suffer for it, not so much their rulers.

 

[Divine3]

May I ask why? I am not keeping up with these events.

 

[mrad25]

There are already sanctions against Iran, that’s basically how this whole thing started, and it’s the working class of Iran that suffer for it, not so much their rulers.

Unfortunately as we all know freedom comes at a cost. It’s the rulers who ultimately suffer though at the end when they lose their power and control.

 

[dvdjs]

Here is an analysis that has gotten some traction:

Threader - Good threads every day

Welcome to Threader, a place to read and discover stories and knowledge from Twitter. Get a selection of good threads every day.

threader.app

 

[Victoria33]

Thanks, I know I must have read some of this earlier as well. I recognized some of it or the article I read was similar.

It’s January 3rd and we basically have a huge news story. It’s hard to get over this.

---

Adding on, other, not a response to the previous post, the security of Soleimani apparently got a bit careless. A lot of people have said, “how were they able to catch him like this?”: Reckless behavior, I said it above.

Qods Force commander Soleimani’s carelessness put him in the U.S. military’s crosshairs | FDD's Long War Journal

The US military’s ability to kill Qassem Soliemani, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps – Qods Force, was the result of his complacency and carelessness while traveling to and from Iraq.

That’s because Soleimani became a public figure inside Iraq and acted as if he did not fear US action, US military officials familiar with his routine told FDD’s Long War Journal .

Soleimani was killed along with Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, the leader of the Hezbollah Brigades and deputy leader of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), and five others in a US military airstrike while traveling in a convoy from Baghdad International Airport last night. The Pentagon said that Soleimani “approved the attacks on the US Embassy in Baghdad” and was plotting further strikes against American interests in Iraq.

If you are Castro 50 years ago, the president of the US or Soleimani, watch your security closely.

 

[BartholomewB]

May I ask why? I am not keeping up with these events.

Because they are in opposition to Khamenei’s Islamic dictatorship, which has been visibly weakened by the death of Soleimani. They are hopeful that it may help to speed up the process of regime change. In the words of Mehdi Khalaji, an Iranian Shia theologian now writing for the Washington Institute, “Whatever the regime’s objectives, not all Iranians will react to Soleimani’s death by mourning. In fact, some citizens have already celebrated his death on social media.”

Khalaji’s analysis is worth a read. It’s not too long:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Responds to the Soleimani Assassination

Khamenei and other regime officials have been quick to swear revenge, but for now they may focus more on stoking patriotic and militaristic sentiment at home.

www.washingtoninstitute.org

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

@dvdjs, that was a measured take and a good one.

Khamenei hasn’t stayed in power this long by being a hothead. So we understand he has to respond, that is part of maintaining his power. But he had cornered Trump, then found that Trump isn’t Carter so now he’s the one in the corner. So accept that there will be a response, let’s hope it is a measured one that allows both sides to stand down.

Doesn’t change my mind about being there: we shouldn’t be there, we need to go.

 

[Divine3]

@BartholomewB. Thank you very much.

 

[BartholomewB]

You’re welcome!

 

[niceatheist]

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.

About the only near term effect I can see is his replacement and lieutenants probably not landing at international airports where American drones can get at them. The network Soleimani was largely responsible for creating still exists. The US will need a lot more drones if it wants to have that significant an impact, and if the leadership decides not to make many more excursions out of Iran, I can’t imagine the US attacking them on Iranian soil. That would be a de facto declaration of war, and would require Congressional approval.

 

[tomarin]

He may not be that easily replaceable. He appears to have been some kind of a mastermind. Too bad he used his gifts for evil and not good purposes.

 

[Ender]

Sorry. Unilaterally designating leadership within nation states as terrorist is insufficient to justify their assassination. As I said before, I am hoping that there is more to the story. But what you are talking about may be a crime.

When Obama took out Osama that was justice; when Trump takes out Soleimani that’s a crime? Nor is it particularly disturbing that we unilaterally (assuming this is accurate) declared him a terrorist; there is little doubt it was true, and if it was true then what is the argument against eliminating him?

I’m not arguing for or against the act, I think time will be the only indicator, but if the US starts down the road of assassinating military officers of foreign regimes…

Keep this act in context: “assassinating military officers of foreign regimes” really doesn’t capture the essence of what just happened. One of the world’s leading terrorists was dispatched; the fact that he held a high ranking position in Iran’s government doesn’t change that, or lessen the consequences of his choices.

it is indeed an escalation.

Is it? What was it called when he was killing American soldiers? Is that irrelevant? Is it only an escalation when we respond?

By our own standards we are terrorists, and what we just did was a terrorist act. All terrorism has a retributive element.

Words have lost their meaning when one cannot distinguish acts of terrorism from a response to such acts.