Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Love Mountain]

In this particular context? I'd think that was obvious.

It isn't, and portraying this conflict as a rudimentary tit-for-tat hides the complexities of the conflict and why this escalation is such a big deal. This was stupid, in my opinion, and I don't thin there's any way of predicting what Iran's response will be. Hopefully, mild.

[Odenat]

It isn't, and portraying this conflict as a rudimentary tit-for-tat hides the complexities of the conflict and why this escalation is such a big deal. This was stupid, in my opinion, and I don't thin there's any way of predicting what Iran's response will be. Hopefully, mild.

You can hope for a mild response but that won't happen. There is a good reason for countries not killing foreign officials.

Imagine what would happen if Iran killed number 2 man at US government (Soleimani was no 2 at Iran). Would US's response be mild? Would US citizens expect a mild response? Iranians are asking for blood and they have a right to do so.

I don't understand how US officials will be safe anywhere in the world from now on. Iran will probably take "decisive defensive" action to "protect Iranian citizens and interests".

Armed drones are cheap and easy to operate. Anyone can be a target anywhere in the world.

[B. W.]

Both Bush and Obama knew the guy was responsible for the deaths of many American soldiers and they did nothing. The guy was actively participating in actions against US personnel and he was doing it outside of his own country. It's about time he got his just due.

[agnes69]

Trump is great!

[Coughdrop addict]

Both Bush and Obama knew the guy was responsible for the deaths of many American soldiers and they did nothing. The guy was actively participating in actions against US personnel and he was doing it outside of his own country. It's about time he got his just due.

When Obama authorized a drone strike on a terrorist the right was horrified and called him a tyrant and murderer just because the terrorist had never officially renounced his US citizenship. I think it's safe to assume that, had Obama taken out Suleimani, the right would mourn him as well.

[Cookiegod]

Saw pics of his body, which I obviously won't repost here.
Confirmation by the US as to that they did it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENUwRk8WwAAuDRk?format=png

Questions are:
1) How will Iran react
and
2) Will the US leave Iraq when the Iraqi government asks them to? The public sentiment there has swung from mildly anti-Iranian to strongly anti-American.

The obvious disrespect of Iraqi national sovereignty and the fact that only 9 of the victims of the first attack were members of the Kataib Hezbollah, the rest belonging to other PMU militias and the REGULAR IRAQI ARMY and the Americans still declared it to be a good thing tells you something about American diplomacy. Well done

EDIT: Whoops, already being talked about in the other thread. Move or delete pls

[Cookiegod]

You can hope for a mild response but that won't happen. There is a good reason for countries not killing foreign officials.

Imagine what would happen if Iran killed number 2 man at US government (Soleimani was no 2 at Iran). Would US's response be mild? Would US citizens expect a mild response? Iranians are asking for blood and they have a right to do so.

I don't understand how US officials will be safe anywhere in the world from now on. Iran will probably take "decisive defensive" action to "protect Iranian citizens and interests".

Armed drones are cheap and easy to operate. Anyone can be a target anywhere in the world.

Calling Soleimani the number 2 is more than a stretch. Especially since Rouhani got that seat, but there are plenty of others as well.

But the rest is correct. Iran is obliged to respond or otherwise lose face, as the war hawks ordering the strikes fully well knew. Sucks for any of the US service members who will suffer the response, but heck, those making the decisions rarely have to suffer the consequences. If Iran doesn't respond, the US will take it as a sign that they can attack them as they please.

[Love Mountain]

I don't think U.S. will take it as a "sign" that they can do whatever they want, that's not really the paradigm of thought in U.S. military community. From U.S. perspective, this was retaliation. Iran has to respond because its own internal politics likely demand it, not because they are afraid of signalling weakness to United States. Everybody understands that Iran is much weaker than United States. The main challenge for United States in the middle east isn't defeating Iran, it's maintaining a coalition of allies that will follow U.S. demands and certain rules. The United States maintains this hegemony by appearing "fair", and powerful enough to maintain a security arrangement to its liking. Iran's goal is to challenge that idea and show that United States cannot do that.

This heavy-handed "retaliation" can potentially swing this game into Iran's favor. In the eyes of Iranians, the middle east, and other international observers, Iran has a carte blanche to respond in any way it chooses.

[athanaric]

Lol prevent war? Is that what you are really telling yourself? You seriously think Iran isn't going to retaliate?

Well, I don't see them escalating to a full scale war, since 1) the US just killed their most capable commander (which certainly took me by surprise, didn't think you people had it in you), and 2) more importantly, their demographics are not suited to such a conflict, unless they draft tens of thousands of bored Afghans and Iraqis with doubtful loyalties. Which would probably be a bad idea for Iran itself.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sauce.

[Cookiegod]

I don't think U.S. will take it as a "sign" that they can do whatever they want, that's not really the paradigm of thought in U.S. military community. From U.S. perspective, this was retaliation. Iran has to respond because its own internal politics likely demand it, not because they are afraid of signalling weakness to United States. Everybody understands that Iran is much weaker than United States. The main challenge for United States in the middle east isn't defeating Iran, it's maintaining a coalition of allies that will follow U.S. demands and certain rules. The United States maintains this hegemony by appearing "fair", and powerful enough to maintain a security arrangement to its liking. Iran's goal is to challenge that idea and show that United States cannot do that.

This heavy-handed "retaliation" can potentially swing this game into Iran's favor. In the eyes of Iranians, the middle east, and other international observers, Iran has a carte blanche to respond in any way it chooses.

Americans do cost benefit analysis like everyone else. Give them a big enough headache and they will remember next time they consider this type of action. Do nothing and they will be more inclined to do a repeat.

[Vanoi]

Well, I don't see them escalating to a full scale war, since 1) the US just killed their most capable commander (which certainly took me by surprise, didn't think you people had it in you), and 2) more importantly, their demographics are not suited to such a conflict, unless they draft tens of thousands of bored Afghans and Iraqis with doubtful loyalties. Which would probably be a bad idea for Iran itself.

Have you missed the last few years? The militias that Iran helped create in Iraq and Syria do include tens of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis.

[Gaidin]

Trump promised no war so major escalation is a bad thing. Obama used diplomacy so diplomacy is a bad thing. I’m not sure how many more tools he has left.

[sumskilz]

EDIT: nevermind. Its been confirmed a US strike.

I'd say that you were at least correct in noting that it was a move right out of the Israeli playbook. In fact, Israel publicly threatened to kill Soleimani somewhat recently.

Lol prevent war? Is that what you are really telling yourself? You seriously think Iran isn't going to retaliate?

They will feel honor-bound to retaliate in some way, but I don't expect there will be any more of a war than there already is. From the perspective of not expecting any sort of reconciliation in the foreseeable future, I'd say it's a fairly effective approach. That's exactly why the Israelis use it. If anything, the US just gained a degree of respect in the region. I suspect even begrudgingly from the Iranians.

[Phier]

When Obama authorized a drone strike on a terrorist the right was horrified and called him a tyrant and murderer just because the terrorist had never officially renounced his US citizenship. I think it's safe to assume that, had Obama taken out Suleimani, the right would mourn him as well.

Lol no, the right was pointing out how the press and the left completely ignored it but whined like little children when Bush did. It was the hypocrisy that was the issue. Being ineffective though and pushing for War with Syria was another issue.

[Cookiegod]

They will feel honor-bound to retaliate in some way, but I don't expect there will be any more of a war than there already is. From the perspective of not expecting any sort of reconciliation in the foreseeable future, I'd say it's a fairly effective approach. That's exactly why the Israelis use it. If anything, the US just gained a degree of respect in the region. I suspect even begrudgingly from the Iranians.

That is complete bull. Putting aside that we do not know who did that attack that killed the American civilian contractor in an area where a multitude of other forces besides the PMU are active, even ignoring that there have been multiple strikes against Khataib Hezbollah before (the Israeli one was still carried out with American support, so there's really zero difference) and that the entire escalation was entirely avoidable to begin with, the strike killing 25 people did not only kill Kata'ib Hezbollah members, but also members of other groups and members of the REGULAR Iraqi army.
Not only is this tightening the bonds between the Iraqi Shia and Iran, it's also putting heavy pressure on the Iraqi government to demand the US to leave, and forcing everyone to leave.

No one is doubting American military capabilities and their inclination to use them.

But to behave like the proverbial elephant in a porcelain shop doesn't gain you respect, it just gives you a lot of broken porcelain, and likely some nasty cuts at the elephants feet.

Best outcome of this is that if the Iraqis succeed to expel the Americans, they'll also have to leave Syria. With the Russians to the north and the government to the south, the occupation will become nothing short of untenable.

[sumskilz]

we do not know who did that attack that killed the American civilian contractor

It doesn't even matter. They know why Soleimani was killed.

Not only is this tightening the bonds between the Iraqi Shia and Iran

As I said, "from the perspective of not expecting any sort of reconciliation in the foreseeable future", this is inevitable.

it's also putting heavy pressure on the Iraqi government to demand the US to leave

What's the problem?

No one is doubting American military capabilities and their inclination to use them.

You are mistaken, many doubt the US's inclination to use its military capabilities. In fact, there is quite a bit of frustration among Arabs regarding the US's disinclination to use them against Assad and Iran.

But to behave like the proverbial elephant in a porcelain shop doesn't gain you respect

Killing Soleimani specifically isn't just some random act of violence. Your reaction comes across like you projecting your feelings and your European sensibilities on the situation, but I appreciate your concern about the implications for our foreign policy. I know you only have America's best interests at heart.

[Cookiegod]

It doesn't even matter. They know why Soleimani was killed.

Yeah, as knows the rest of the world.

As I said, "from the perspective of not expecting any sort of reconciliation in the foreseeable future", this is inevitable.

Yeah, so let's have our enemies get as many allies as possible. More targets! Pang pang! Murrica F yeah! Ratttatatttatatah! Booom.

What's the problem?

Stupid question.

You are mistaken, many doubt the US's inclination to use its military capabilities. In fact, there is quite a bit of frustration among Arabs regarding the US's disinclination to use them against Assad and Iran.

lol no.

Killing Soleimani specifically isn't just some random act of violence. Your reaction just comes across like you projecting your feelings and your European sensibilities on the situation, but I appreciate your concern about the implications for our foreign policy. I know you only have America's best interests at heart.

Hey American citizen, last I checked this didn't happen in Texas or in Tel Aviv. This has implications for the whole world, and the whole world is reacting to it. And yeah, it's not a random act of violence, it's an act of war. Also you're one to talk while projecting your Israeli sensibilities on the poor Arab allies, aka the house of Saud. Aww.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

No one is doubting American military capabilities and their inclination to use them.

Just about everyone in the middle east is (or, was now). That's what happens when an administration draws a red line and does nothing when it is crossed.
May Suleimani burn in hell.

[Copperknickers II]

What a story to wake up to. Soleimani, as most here are aware, was essentially the third highest figure in Iranian politics, after Khamenei and Rouhani. Since he was a military target and the attack was on Iraqi soil, this attack is not quite 'a declaration of war' on Iran, but it's pretty close. I'm interested to hear opinions on the following things:

1. How will Iran respond to this? Anything less than a Benghazi 2012-style attack will seem quite muted. But Iran is hardly in a position to go in all guns blazing against the Americans - without their top general, in the wake of more massive street protests against the government in recent weeks, and with the Israelis and Saudis just waiting for any excuse to cripple Iranian operations in the Gulf and Syria/Lebanon, they stand to lose quite a lot in the event of a major escalation. My guess is we'll just see more of the same as we have seen recently with the ship seizures and missile attacks in Saudi Arabia, and perhaps some kind of embassy attack, as well as a ramp up of nuclear program rhetoric. In the long term, we may see a major government-sanctioned terror plot somewhere unexpected (but probably not on American soil). The UAE, perhaps.

2. What will happen in Iraq? I've not been following events there closely, but I know they're at a moment of very high political tension in the wake of protests and the resignation of the PM. Interesting that this BBC video from last week puts the spotlight firmly on Soleimani as the bogeyman for anti-government protestors there. I wonder if this is the prelude for an American attempt to take back control of affairs in Iraq from the Iranians. But it's a dangerous game to be playing, considering the role Soleimani played in suppressing IS, the flagrancy of the attack on Iraqi government personnel, and the level of tensions on both sides. Will we see a major civil war breaking out, maybe even another refugee crisis?

3. What is Trump's strategy here? One always wonders how much his decisions are based on advice and long-term strategy, or just his own 'smart' ideas. Republicans are celebrating the killing, as you'd expect. Of course, his domestic situation must be a major motivating factor here - coming out of an impeachment, and into a reelection campaign. But perhaps it's part of a strategy to initiate a counteroffensive on Iranian hegemony in the Middle East and try to get back on the front foot on the world stage, demonstrating that America still has teeth even if they don't want to get involved in foreign wars. Or perhaps it was just a dumb decision whose consequences were not thought through. Or indeed, all of the above.