These dates don’t line up with the attacks on the US military base which killed an American and heavily damaged the base plus the embassy siege which NYT reported showed tacit support from local police. It’s unique in the region where the US doesn’t respond to protests with mass shooting of protestors like the hundreds killed in Iraq this past month.
Hands down this is the boldest thing Trump has done since taking office and will have serious implications.
But I don’t think anyone is under any illusion that both men were responsible and helped finance/support countless terrorist operations. And the Quds leader had his hands in every dirty Shiite business in the region, most notably playing a big role in suppression the revolution in Syria, bombardments of Israel from Lebanon, and constantly stirring up shit in Iraq including openly attacking Americans.
Also some 60% of the Iran economy is owned by gov connected groups and agencies including the imperial guard and Quds who all pay zero taxes and live in luxury, while jacking up gas prices on the poor when things get tough.
Not many people in the west are gong to miss this guy at all. Still the methods
are quite shocking and atypical.
> These dates don’t line up with the attacks on the US military base which killed an American and heavily damaged the base plus the embassy siege which NYT reported showed tacit support from local police. It’s unique in the region where the US doesn’t respond to protests with mass shooting of protestors like the hundreds killed in Iraq this past month.
They don't have to. This attack had been in planning for a good long time before the attacks on the US military base. You say it's unique for the region; I say that it is, because it isn't in response to any action taken. They've wanted him dead for a long time, and the US base attack was a scapegoat casus belli.
From what I've heard, this airstrike took place about 5km from the nearest US base, which seems like a reason to be optimistic if it's accurate. An accurate airstrike is impressive, I'm sure, but if an airstrike is the pentagon's best option within walking distance of a base, then perhaps they're not in shape to start a real war... and they have enough analysts to say so.
It is the least dangerous for American lives. Soldiers on the field can die. A UAV pilot can die from PTSD or whatever (as can soldiers), but not directly from taking part in the strike.
Let me put it differently. If a military force thinks sending soldiers even as little as 5km out from the base is best avoided, that military force is not in shape to start a war. The Pentagon has analysts enough to say so.
Does anyone know why this post is flagged? Or why similar stories have been removed, etc?
Is it that it's off-topic?
Edit: It seems every post remaining on this story has been flagged. I imagine it's 'off-topic' but curious why other off-topic stuff hasn't warranted such a strong reaction?
Some folk insist that HN not address mainstream news or politics, though having been here over a decade I can vouch for the fact that this didn't used to be the case.
"The United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia have targeted Soleimani for assassination for over a decade. In 2019 alone, Iran reported over half a dozen alleged plots to kill the general, the most recent of which was in early October." [1]
I'm an Iranian living in the states and I hate the Islamic Republic to the bone. Islamic Republic is the evil of my era.
With that being said, I truly don't understand what the U.S. plan is at this point. Do they want to make Iran another Syria? Or Iraq? Because everything they've done in this administration is aligned with one of those examples.
Basically U.S. strategy is like holding a gun to someone's head and saying "kill yourself or I will kill you".
Of course that person is gonna fight back.
I am worried about a war and I'm worried the U.S. population doesn't slightly care about government's actions outside the country. And the U.S. has been acting quite hostile for many years now.
This is truly sad news. Not because I liked or cared about that genocidal motherfucker.
Because Islamic Republic is (probably) gonna have to respond.
I think there are 2 important questions:
1. Can Iran retaliate this?
2. Are they willing to?
I think the answer to this question 1 is, yes, they can. Shadow of war has been on Iran for more than a decade now and Iran has strong influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm pretty much sure they have plans ready to attack U.S. targets in case of war. Because of course Iran cannot defend itself against U.S. in a classic war.
But hopefully, the answer to question 2 is, No. Supreme leader Khamenei understand that if they try to "really" retaliate this, the war may be imminent. And over all these decades he has shown that he is afraid of war and he would step back if necessary.
But again, we've never been this close to a war. At this point any side can miscalculate the other one's reaction.
Another point I want to make:
Islamic Republic is not a match for the U.S. obviously. But you have to remember: Their pain threshold is quite different.
Islamic Republic may lose a general or a thousand soldiers. They can take it.
But if Islamic Republic responds back with a few bombings and killing of a few American diplomats, it's enough to make it a full-blown national disaster for both the administration and the country.
I'm sorry about the long post. I'm afraid for my home country, family and friends who are already crushed and destroyed by the sanctions and are now threatened by war and I'm not necessarily level-headed.
The status quo in the region is that Iran is winning and the USA is not winning. Perhaps this is an attempt to provoke Iran into making errors, but I doubt that will happen.
I think not much will (visibly) happen. The USA will keep on not winning, because they don't have any Soleimanis. Have you heard American generals speak? It's all TED Talk level BS. Decadence is a powerful force.
[1]: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/475205-fifth-pentagon-off...