Iran faces dilemma in avenging general's death: To strike back without starting a war

  
Via:  krishna  •  4 weeks ago  •  47 comments

By:   Sean D. Naylor, Jenna McLaughlin and Zach Dorfman,Yahoo News

Iran faces dilemma in avenging general's death: To strike back without starting a war
Because of Soleimani’s iconic stature, it will have to be seen to strike back itself, rather than merely through proxies, he said. But . . .

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


512

A boy in Tehran carries a portrait of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq early on Friday. (Photo: Vahid Salemi/AP)

WASHINGTON — Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, vowed to exact “severe revenge” for the Thursday night U.S. airstrike that killed the country’s most famous general, but the Iranian regime will have to walk a fine line to respond strongly without provoking a war with the United States, former intelligence officials familiar with the region said Friday.

Soleimani was a charismatic leader who for 20 years had played a key role in orchestrating Iran’s foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly with regard to its use of proxy militia forces such as Lebanese Hezbollah, numerous Iraqi Shiite armed groups and the Houthi militia in Yemen. He directed the killing of more than 600 U.S. troops during the Iraq War by Shiite militias using a particularly lethal sort of roadside bomb called an explosively formed penetrator. More recently, he commanded Iran’s military efforts to shore up its ally Bashar Assad in the Syrian war. “He was the most famous intel figure on the planet,” said Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior CIA operations official.

But that fame has now put the Iranian regime in a bind, according to Norman Roule, who was the national intelligence manager for Iran until 2017. Because of Soleimani’s iconic stature, it will have to be seen to strike back itself, rather than merely through proxies, he said. But Iran must do so with enough “implausible deniability” to avoid giving the United States an excuse to launch a war that could lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Iran will also want to avoid antagonizing Europe, China or Russia in its response, Roule said.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
Krishna
1  seeder  Krishna    4 weeks ago

But that fame has now put the Iranian regime in a bind, according to Norman Roule, who was the national intelligence manager for Iran until 2017. Because of Soleimani’s iconic stature, it will have to be seen to strike back itself, rather than merely through proxies, he said.

But Iran must do so with enough “implausible deniability” to avoid giving the United States an excuse to launch a war that could lead to the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Iran will also want to avoid antagonizing Europe, China or Russia in its response, Roule said.

 
 
 
Krishna
2  seeder  Krishna    4 weeks ago

A full scale war between Iran and the U.S. would ultimately result in the current Iranian regime being kicked out of power so their leaders obviously want to avoid that.

And most American leaders don't want a total war either.

(Although Trump might not care, as he would be safe and protected while he sends American kids off to die...and after all, he needs something big to distract from the humiliation he's facing due to the fact that he's only the third American president to be impeached :-(

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1  WallyW  replied to  Krishna @2    4 weeks ago
while he sends American kids off to die.

Let's not forget the Bushes and Obama doing the same.

Impeachment means squat unless he is convicted and removed.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Krishna @2    4 weeks ago
A full scale war between Iran and the U.S. would ultimately result in the current Iranian regime being kicked out of power so their leaders obviously want to avoid that.

How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice for that end?  Isn't that the true question?

Soleimani may have been responsible for dozens of American deaths, does that justify hundreds or even thousands of American deaths if this go to war?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2    4 weeks ago
Soleimani may have been responsible for dozens of American deaths,

Far more than dozens.

he got his just reward.

I feel no sorrow for his death.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2    4 weeks ago

A full scale war between Iran and the U.S. would ultimately result in the current Iranian regime being kicked out of power so their leaders obviously want to avoid that.

How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice for that end?  Isn't that the true question?

Soleimani may have been responsible for dozens of American deaths, does that justify hundreds or even thousands of American deaths if this go to war?

This guy had been around for a while. And at several points in time American generals had considered in taking him out. 

Which would have been justified.

In addition he was a relatively easy target as he appeared in public fairly often and we certainly had the technology and know how to suceed. 

But each time, American military decided the smarter move would be to not kill him.

Why?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @2.2.2    4 weeks ago
"Soleimani may have been responsible for dozens of American deaths, does that justify hundreds or even thousands of American deaths if this go to war?"

If America, with or without Israel, is going to do it, why wait until Iran has atomic weapons, and adequate delivery ability because only an idiot would think they're not developing them as fast as they can?  Unless, of course you'd rather see many millions of civilians killed instead. 

 
 
 
JBB
2.2.4  JBB  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.2.3    4 weeks ago

Iran is not an immediate threat to American power either economically or militarily butt China is and China is only getting stronger by the day. So, why doesn't the US attack China premptively, instead?

One really dumb question deserved another...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.2.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @2.2.4    4 weeks ago

I didn't realize China was killing hundreds, maybe thousands, of Americans like Soleimani had done, and was probably planning, nor did I know that the Chinese were attacking American Embassies as the Iranians or their proxies have done, nor did I know that China was bombing and firing rockets and missiles at American allies the way the Iranians or their proxies have been doing, nor did I know that the Chinese burn American flags and chant "Death to America", and Iran has threatened violence against both America and American allies, but I wasn't aware that China had done those things, but I guess you know more about that than I do.  Forget the fact that I've been living in China for more than 13 years and you've probably never been here.

So America should be concerned that China is getting stronger economically and militarily, and just might surpass the USA one day?  Now THERE'S a good reason for the USA to attack China.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Krishna @2.2.2    3 weeks ago
But each time, American military decided the smarter move would be to not kill him. Why?

Because the retaliation would have caused far more American deaths.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.7  Greg Jones  replied to  Krishna @2.2.2    3 weeks ago
But each time, American military decided the smarter move would be to not kill him

This time they felt the action was justified. What good could result in his staying alive? More terrorism?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.8  Greg Jones  replied to  Krishna @2.2.2    3 weeks ago
does that justify hundreds or even thousands of American deaths if this go to war?

It obviously would NOT a be ground war, but special ops actions against high value targets.

Lots of drones, but no killing of civilians like Obama did.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.2.3    3 weeks ago

Buzz,

That is a different issue. In no way, this assassination will affect whether or not Iran develops a Nuclear weapon. 

Stopping a nuclear program there would be a whole different operation. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.7    3 weeks ago
This time they felt the action was justified.

They???  Or he?

What good could result in his staying alive? More terrorism?

Oh yeah, all out war is a much better result....jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.11  loki12  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.8    3 weeks ago
Lots of drones, but no killing of civilians like Obama did.

What? No double tap drone strikes? hit a cultural gathering, like a wedding and the wait for first responders to show up and then hit again so you get the mass body count? that's not very liberal of you.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.12  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2    3 weeks ago

It is Trump who will be sacrificing them, not Krishna.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.2.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.9    3 weeks ago

I'm glad that threats mean nothing to you. 

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
2.2.14  Donald J. Trump fan 1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.9    3 weeks ago

What assassination?  There was none.  We simply attacked a military target that had been engaged in attacking and killing us for years.  He just killed and wounded Americans and attacked sovereign American territory and was meeting with others to coordinate more such attacks when his convoy was attacked.  Only enemies of America refer to what happened to that terrorist an assassination.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.2.15  Thrawn 31  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @2.2.14    3 weeks ago

Dude, countries have operated on the difference between proxy and hot wars for the last 70 years, don't fuck that up. Hot wars are much worse than proxy wars. Trump went ahead and possible fucked up a proxy war. 

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.16  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Ozzwald @2.2    3 weeks ago
How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice for that end?  Isn't that the true question?

Yes-- that's always the question.

How many American lives were we willing to lose to get Saddam out of power?

Quite a few, as it turned out. (To say nothing of those seriously maimed for life...and those with such serious cases of PTSD that their lives are really horrendous).

At the time, many Americans supported that war.

But people are starting to wake up....now I even know many Republicans that are no longer hawks...(despite our Neo-con Chickenhawk Republican president who keeps beating the drums of war) ... and keeps sending our kids off to die in foreign lands.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.17  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.2.16    3 weeks ago
But people are starting to wake up....now I even know many Republicans that are no longer hawks...(despite our Neo-con Chickenhawk Republican president who keeps beating the drums of war) ... and keeps sending our kids off to die in foreign lands.

Ooops-- he did it again! :-(

Trump to Send 3,000 More Troops to Middle East Amid Iran Escalation

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.18  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.2.17    3 weeks ago
Ooops-- he did it again! Trump to Send 3,000 More Troops to Middle East Amid Iran Escalation

Of course this situation isn't unique-- this is from last October:

 Foreign Policy - OCTOBER 16, 2019,  

Trump Is Sending More Troops to Saudi Arabia

The U.S. troop deployment in Saudi Arabia is supposedly meant to convince the Saudis that Washington is not abandoning them as it did with the Kurds.

It also seeks to fortify defenses against potential conventional attacks by Iran.

However, both goals will be elusive. Riyadh can read the tea leaves of U.S. policy and has most probably come to the conclusion by now that while it didn’t trust or like President Barack Obama, it certainly cannot count on Trump either, who seems at time to care more about selling arms to the Saudis than ensuring their security.

As for defense upgrades, no matter how potent and widespread those might be, there is no military solution to swarms of drones and missiles that can now hit targets with the utmost precision.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.2.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Krishna @2.2.16    3 weeks ago
How many American lives were we willing to lose to get Saddam out of power?

That's not the subject at hand, stop deflecting.

At the time, many Americans supported that war.

And many did not.

But people are starting to wake up....now I even know many Republicans that are no longer hawks...(despite our Neo-con Chickenhawk Republican president who keeps beating the drums of war) ... and keeps sending our kids off to die in foreign lands.

I agree, many are not.  But too bad they are too cowardly to stand up to the current UNstable NON-genius Trump.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @2    4 weeks ago
(Although Trump might not care, as he would be safe and protected while he sends American kids off to die...and after all, he needs something big to distract from the humiliation he's facing due to the fact that he's only the third American president to be impeached 

I have seen this line of thought being bandied about quite frequently.

Now, how does ANYTHING Trump does distract from his impeachment? Is it ongoing? Are any of Trump's current actions able to stop it?

This is rather a silly line of "thought"--and I use that term loosely as it applies here.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.4  dennis smith  replied to  Krishna @2    3 weeks ago

Although Trump might not care, as he would be safe and protected while he sends American kids off to die.

Sounds like what Americans said about LBJ when he was POTUS.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.4.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  dennis smith @2.4    3 weeks ago
Although Trump might not care, as he would be safe and protected while he sends American kids off to die.

Yes-- Trump is a perfect example of the definition of a "Chickenhawk":


Chickenhawk (chicken hawk or chicken-hawk) is a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., a war hawk), yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age.

The term indicates that the person in question is hypocritical for personally dodging a draft or otherwise shirking their duty to their country during a time of armed conflict while advocating that others do so. Generally, the implication is that chickenhawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

How many minutes to armageddon are left on the Doomsday Clock?

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    4 weeks ago

I am convinced that neither the U.S. nor Iran want a full scale war. 

But what worries me more than either country intentionally starting a war is that "accidents happen".  

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @3.1    4 weeks ago

Sorry, Iran has been pushing the US forever. They have finally crossed the line. 

Maybe if Trump hadn't faced such a backlash from our faux troop pullout from Syria his response would have been different.

If they are dumb enough to retaliate in a way that leads to war; then they are dumb enough to face destruction.

Anyone that thinks their military is even remotely in the US league is nuts. 

So long as we don't plan on nation building; which has been a stupid idea whenever we try it.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
Maybe if Trump hadn't faced such a backlash from our faux troop pullout from Syria his response would have been different.

Nope.

The real reason he's finally doing it now, after all these years, is that he needs to distract people from the humiliation of his being impeached . . . 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Krishna @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

Ahhh - another Omar fan, eh?  Exactly what she said - and both of you are incorrect.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
The real reason he's finally doing it now, after all these years, is that he needs to distract people from the humiliation of his being impeached . . . 

That is just crazy. There is not ONE thing in the world Trump can do to stop impeachment. If anyone needs distracting, maybe it is Nancy--who can't make up her mind on sending the articles to the Senate.

So WHO is he supposed to be distracting, and to what real effect??

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.5  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Krishna @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
is that he needs to distract people from the humiliation of his being impeached

that is what the left wants to "think" .... when the truth is pelosi let them down.

if she had a real case the articles of impeachment would have been in the senate before christmas.   she has nothing, she knows it.

until pelosi gets off her ass and sends the paperwork to the senate, there is nothing to distract from.

 

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

BS. Pelosi and the Dems don't have a case and they know it. Trump is actually gaining ground in polls just like Clinton did. So long as the economy is strong the Democrats are toast next election and they know it.  The only chance they have is to remove Trump. Even if that means sacrificing Biden.

Oh, if Trump does nothing after a US contractor and Embassy is attacked those very same people that blasted him for the faux pullout in Syria, will blast him again for being weak and unable to act due to being paralyzed by the impeachment. That includes the neocon and chicken hawk Dems.

Trump took out a terrorist and the left acts like it is the worst thing on the planet. If a president with a D behind his name had done this; oh say Obama with Qaddaffi, then the left would demand that we all bow down to his glory. Oh, and by the way Obama violated the war powers act in Libya, inserting troops back into Iraq, and Syria. Not a damn peep out of the left. 

But Trruuummmmppppp!!!!!!  

I am probably the anti war person on NT. Since we are not going to remove troops from Iraq and completely withdraw all US citizens and let the Iraqi Shai fend for themselves; then we better damn well take whatever measures are necessary to protect US personnel. Allowing a Iranian terrorist to freely operate within the borders of Iraq is beyond unacceptable. He will be replaced; but we can only hope the next asshole that takes the job is no where near as good- and we can kill him far more quickly.

 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.8  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
"The real reason he's finally doing it now, after all these years, is that he needs to distract people from the humiliation of his being impeached . . . "

You needed to put an "/s" after that comment.  Not everyone is aware of your style.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.9  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
If they are dumb enough to retaliate in a way that leads to war; then they are dumb enough to face destruction. Anyone that thinks their military is even remotely in the US league is nuts. 

Correct.

But have you ever heard of the term "Assymetric Warfare"? (It what a mitiarily weaker nation or political does when confronting a much stronger military power).

For example, what happened during 9/11....

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.10  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.1.8    3 weeks ago
"The real reason he's finally doing it now, after all these years, is that he needs to distract people from the humiliation of his being impeached . . . "
You needed to put an "/s" after that comment.  Not everyone is aware of your style.

On occasion I have been sarcastic. But that comment is serious. 

Think about it-- Soleimani had been attacking Americans for a long time. So why is Trump suddenly deciding to off him now?

President often think about their legacy.And if future generations read about Trump in their history books, one of the things he'll be remembered for: he's one of only 3 presidents who;s been impeached! (it doesn't matter that he won't be removed from office (heck, even Nixon wasn't removed from office by the Senate)...the fact is there mere act of impeaching him is a blot of his record. And he knows that!

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.11  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @3.1.10    3 weeks ago

You didn't even know who this guy was a couple days ago let alone what he has done.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @3.1.9    3 weeks ago

Oh, so you don't think that the killing of an American contractor and the attack on the American Embassy was the straw that broke the camel's back?  Then why wait until now, since the impeachment process has been going for how long, a year?

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump fan 1
4  Donald J. Trump fan 1    3 weeks ago

Well if Iran succeeds at what they announced today, there will be war.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Donald J. Trump fan 1 @4    3 weeks ago

They almost have to, Trump has kinda put everyone in a WW1 scenario.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
5  Thrawn 31    3 weeks ago

Meh, they will ultimately win a war. The fact is the US no longer has the treasure or desire to beat Iran in a war.

Iran: 81 million people, 3 times the size of Iraq, nightmare terrain, will absolutely be supplied by Russia and China, US has zero allies, US war weariness.

US: Largest most advanced military in the world, richest country on Earth, virtually immune from foreign attack/invasion, 320 million people, TIRED OF WAR, POLITICIANS WILL FACE MASSIVE BACKLASH TO THE DRAFT.

And yes, we will have to draft if we have any hope of securing the country. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5    3 weeks ago

The U.S. has plenty of allies and that is something that Iran is seriously thinking about.  The allies could, pretty easily, wipe Iran off the map - but, would they?  Don't think so, but it would put some really serious thinking into Iran's political forces as to who they can or can not push around. 

 
 
 
MUVA
6  MUVA    3 weeks ago

The picture of the terrorist that accompanied this article looks just like the glamour shot of Nazi that accompanied the article on the battle of the bulge  a week or so ago.Like I said then it's a good thing it's lets you what the person thinks that posted it.I guess they think terrorist are glamorous. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  MUVA @6    3 weeks ago

No  [DELETED ,] those opposed just think it was ill-timed and not sufficiently supported. Fuck that guy. But this assassination could have far worse consequences. A lot more Americans may die as a result. This wasn't just knocking off some shitbag terrorist, this was assassinating the second most powerful person in a sovereign government, basically an act of war. We will just have to wait to see what Iran does.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.2  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @6    3 weeks ago

The guy has a wonky eye, bad teeth and skin cancer. Not very glamorous IMHO.

512

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Sparty On
Tacos!
CB
Sunshine
Ronin2
Tessylo
Wishful_thinkin
jungkonservativ111
Save Me Jebus
Dulay





22 visitors