The US just assassinated...

Well, so much for "Trump is against endless wars" and "Trump is going to get the US out of the middle east".....

EDIT:

Also, because this is Trump, there's a tweet for that:

Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled!

Imaginos1892 wrote:

gcomeau wrote:There is no formal state of war between the US and Iran.

No, they've just been 'informally' at war with us for the last 40 years. Attacking the U.S. Embassy was just another act of war perpetrated by Iran. We whacked the state-sponsored terrorist that did it.

gcomeau wrote:congressionally authorized military engagements

Try these on for size:

“Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” (PUBLIC LAW 107–40—SEPT. 18, 2001)

“Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” (PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002)

Both of which are still in effect. Soleimani has been supporting terrorist activities for more than 20 years. Legitimate target, legitimate location, as authorized by Congress. Trump did his job as Commander In Chief of the United States Armed Forces.
———————————
Never throw shit at an armed man.

The first AUMF authorizes actions against the terrosts behind 9/11 and their associates.

The second one authorizes military force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime.

How are either applicable here?

And it apparently violates the more recent SOFA agreement between the US and Iraq, since the Iraqi government wasn't notified.

Joat42 wrote:It's not like there are no precedents for these types of strikes regardless what we think of them and I guess some law-scholars are going to have some heated debates for some time.

Regardless if it was within US-law or not, I personally think the way they went about it is kind of stupid since it antagonized a lot of people in the Middle-East.

Using a sledgehammer to get the point through are sometimes valid, but not always.

My preference is for the US to just get the Hell out of the ME. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing of hard shale, the US is now energy independent. America does not need their oil. Now that the Cold War is over, America no longer has a compelling interest in securing oil supplies for alleged allies. Aside from the monetary costs and the battlefield casualties, the price of the First Gulf War was the 9-11-2001 attacks. The perpetrators of those attacks were Saudi Arabians and Kuwaitis, the same people who we protected and liberated. America should not expend blood and treasure to secure oil for traitors who are perfectly willing to not just acquiesce to but enable countries such as Pakistan and North Korea not to mention Iraq and Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. My preferences acknowledged, even an isolationist America has vital interests in shaping global realities.

Since the Europeans are willing to enable Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, Europeans can cope with securing their own oil supplies (or try to rely on solar and wind). Whatever the Europeans chose to do, Saudi Arabia and Iran are enemies. The recent missile attacks on Saudi Arabia's main petroleum hub reveal an unexpected vulnerability. The Saudis will not be able to just pump their oil to terminals on the Red Sea while their war with Iran closes the Persian Gulf. Even if a new ME war does not go nuclear, the Saudis and the Kuwaitis are so utterly dependant on imports and technology to support their bloated populations that a war could kill 60 million people. When that happens, the war will go nuclear.

Since Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as well as China and Russia were unwilling to confront North Korea about its nuclear program before it got the bomb, they should have to exist with the consequences. President Trump has engaged in a long shot attempt to charm North Korea into some type of realiance with South Korea if not reunification. The demographics make this a win-win scenario for both. It appears that this has failed. The solution for America is to withdraw from its alliances with South Korea and Japan (who remain enemies to each other rather than allies) while encouraging them as well as Taiwan to acquire their own nuclear arsenals. Japan could have nukes over an extended weekend vacation. South Korea would require a month. Taiwan would require a summer. The emergence of three new nuclear powers in East Asia would be a bad thing for Russia and China. Fuck them! They should have thought of that when they were enabling North Korea to go nuclear.


Trump was making it EXTREMELY clear to Iran that the US was withdrawing from the ME. Trump didn't retaliate for the destruction of the recon drone. Trump didn't retaliate for the attack on Saudi oil facilities. Iran responded to this restraint by attacking our embassy. America remembers the Iran hostages as well as Benghazi. Trump responded with an escalation that was very restrained even though it violated accepted limitations. America will not invade Iran to enable regime change. However; Trump just demonstrated that America can and will exterminate the leaders of Iran's regime until the survivors are willing to be reasonable. I seem to recall a Captain of an RMN Rolland engaging in such behavior modification.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Trump was making it EXTREMELY clear to Iran that the US was withdrawing from the ME.

This must be a novel form of "withdrawing" where you increase the number of troops deployed in the theater in question.

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Trump was making it EXTREMELY clear to Iran that the US was withdrawing from the ME.

This must be a novel form of "withdrawing" where you increase the number of troops deployed in the theater in question.

Rhetorical question:
Did these troop deployments occur before or after the attack on our embassy?

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Rhetorical question:
Did these troop deployments occur before or after the attack on our embassy?

Does it matter? One of the main things trumpets like you have been harping on and on about is that Trump "is not interested in war in the middle east", that he's looking to withdraw troops and not get into endless wars.

And yet, here he is, ordering the assassination of an iranian official on iraqi soil. Here he is, surging almost 4000 troops into the theater, all on some nebulous "there's an attack imminent" bullshit that has not been corroborated by anyone credible yet.

All of that, while he is under fire domestically. It's an all-too-common rhythm of US politics: A US President feels some political pressure, so they go poke the middle east a bit to look strong. It wouldn't even be that remarkable, except it's something that you and other Trumpets were telling us all the time that it's something Trump would not do.

And Iran is .... not playing to the script Trump wanted them to follow.

DUBAI, Jan 3 (Reuters) - Iran will launch legal measures at the international level to hold the United States to account for the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, Tehran’s most prominent military commander, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told state TV on Friday.

“It was clearly a terrorist action ... Iran will launch various legal measures at the international level to hold America to account for Soleimani’s assassination,” Zarif said.

Now, normally, this wouldn't do anything - Accusing a hegemonial power with allies of acting as if they're entitled to enact justice anywhere they want doesn't really work out.
However, given how much Trump et al have been pissing away any goodwill the US might have had left over, it will be interesting to see what happens.

Oh, and the Iraqi parliament is looking at whether or not they want US troops on their soil.

The E wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Rhetorical question:
Did these troop deployments occur before or after the attack on our embassy?

Does it matter? One of the main things trumpets like you have been harping on and on about is that Trump "is not interested in war in the middle east", that he's looking to withdraw troops and not get into endless wars.

And yet, here he is, ordering the assassination of an iranian official on iraqi soil. Here he is, surging almost 4000 troops into the theater, all on some nebulous "there's an attack imminent" bullshit that has not been corroborated by anyone credible yet.

Why yes, it does matter. At least to any rational intelligent person, since it is in part a reaction to said attack.

zyffyr wrote:Why yes, it does matter. At least to any rational intelligent person, since it is in part a reaction to said attack.

Then, as the article I linked to explains, yes: This particular deployment was ordered after the assassination. But even without those troops, there are still the 14000 troops sent into the region since May. Any claims that Trump is following a strategy with the intended goal of getting the US out of the Middle East have to be measured against the observable reality of the US emphatically not getting out of the region; not to force some sort of resolution by, for example, ending ISIS or overthrowing the iranian regime, but to forestall an attack by iranian forces that the Trump admin assures us is or was coming.