On January 3, Trump Tired Missiles at Iraq assassinating Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
On January 7, Iran Struck Back with over a dozen missiles at US forces in Iraq.
Upping the Ante Iranian Style
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1214718977546608641
Trump Backing Down
backing down? https://t.co/CdL1lVVOAe
— Jim Bianco (@biancoresearch) January 8, 2020
Iran Backs Off as Well
Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.
We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 8, 2020
Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, justifies the attack under UN charter 51, then tries to defuse the situation.
Crimes Against Humanity
Denying me a visa in violation of 1947 UNHQ Agreement pales in comparison to:
-Pompeo’s threat to starve Iranians (crime against humanity)
-Trump’s bluster about cultural heritage (war crime)
–#EconomicTerrorism
-Cowardly assassinationBut what are they really afraid of? Truth?
— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 7, 2020
Ten Things We Know
- Trump assassinated Qassem Soleimani on foreign soil, in Iraq.
- Trump made a martyr out of Soleimani.
- Soleimani was a fierce ISIS fighter but we took him out anyway.
- Trump twice threatened to attack Iranian cultural sites if Iran responded. Attacking cultural sites is a war crime.
- Iraq threatened to boot out the US out of the country in response to the strike.
- Iran is capable of of a precision hit with dozens of missiles. There were no casualties as Iran clearly intended.
- Trump managed to rally Iranians in support of their current leadership.
- US allies backed away from supporting Trump and instead called for de-escalation.
- Trump backed down from his threat to hit Iran hard if they counterattacked.
- Iran backed down stating it did not seek escalation or war.
That’s what we know.
This is an opinion: Collectively, Trump lost the exchange. Iran came out stronger, and Trump weaker, albeit at the cost of their military leader.
Rational Thinking
Most rational thought of the evening https://t.co/QNPXwnwCZH
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) January 8, 2020
Reflection on the Polls
https://twitter.com/PT_OT_Subjectiv/status/1213686313955803137
Just a Reminder
In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2011
Ending the Confusion
Let me end your confusion.
Obama drone strike were moronic.
Trump sanctions were moronic.Just because Obama was a moron does no mean Trump isn’t.
It’s a sad state of affairs that this needs to be explained.
Does that end the confusion? https://t.co/DQbYxRvqy6
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) January 8, 2020
Senator Lindesy Graham Brags About Preemptive Strike
Is there any reason Iran should not have the same presumptive right? https://t.co/3FWG0qgHlh
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) January 8, 2020
Is there any reason Iran should not have the same preemptive right?
State-Sponsored Terrorism
The US, by far, is the leader in state-sponsored terrorism. No other country comes close.
Mind you, the US overthrew a democratically elected Iranian leader and replaced that person with a US puppet to steal Iranian oil.
Start there. https://t.co/R8b9FD1zvE
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) January 8, 2020
History Lesson Part One
https://twitter.com/SpockResists/status/1213823592988921856
History Lesson Part Two
Joe you are the cretin for failing to see 20 years of US warmongering belligerency costs trillions of dollars and did no good.
Please reflect on who is a cretin.
Also I suggest a history lesson. The US overthrew an elected leader in Iran an put in a US puppet.
Study History. https://t.co/BkHYwY6Pfb
— Mike “Mish” Shedlock (@MishGEA) January 8, 2020
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
I think this is the wrong take. Iran “hit” back to look strong. The US can diffuse this now with no casualties and some property damage. The general remains dead.
Im of the opinion this was state sponsored murder and clearly illegal bit what does it matter? No matter who is president they all end up being john mccain on foreign policy.
And now Iran squandered their goodwill by killing their own citizens with a missile.
So by any measure your take is 100 percent wrong
99.9% likely that Iran inadvertently shot down that Ukrainian airliner. They are looking inept. I don’t see where Trump hurt himself in this exchange at this point.
They were looking inept right until the pics were released showing the hits on the air base. That’s when the “official” narrative crumbled and the whole picture started coming into focus. It’s a real blessing to be able to see things as they are as opposed to how we wisht hem to be. Just sayin’
Boy, it’s seems true that men really are bigger gossips that women. So much speculation, so little information. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? I don’t think so!
Iranian missiles did not miss. Have a look at satellites picture showing the Ain Assad airbase where 6 storage structures have been severely damaged . Could they have been chosen because they are not housing military personnel.?
The Iranian strike success show that this important airbase so far (like the Saudi oïl installations) has no effective aerial defense.at all. Next strike could kill all military personnel if Iran so wished. That could be their message.
On top of that 2 rockets landed again near the US embassy in Bagdad.
Nevertheless it would be
I wonder why the Iranian missiles were so off-target compared to the precision attack that hit the Saudi oil installations? Those were very accurate and demonstrated Iran’s missile capability.
It will likely come out in the future that the missiles Iran fired yesterday were low-yielding and came nowhere near bunkers or other places that American soldiers would have been.
There were many other US installations that could have been targeted, such as the American Embassy, which is the logical target if Iran wanted to make a major statement. But that would have been a bridge too far for Trump. He would have hit Iranian oil targets very hard. It also may come out that there was back-channel communication between us and the Iranians that worked this out to avoid escalation but give the Supreme Leader the cover he needs to demonstrate revenge to his people.
Let’s get this out of the way: The Middle East isn’t worth American blood or money, so in my opinion, we shouldn’t be involved there.
As for the Trump-Iran pissing match, though, it’s too early to definitively say who “won.” However, the current tally is:
Trump: assassinates Soleimani and al-Muhandis
Iran: fires retaliatory missiles into the sand and probably shoots down a Ukrainian airliner in the process
Supposedly, both Bush Jr and Obama considered targeting Soleimani, but decided that it was too risky to go after such a big fish.
Notwithstanding the blather of the Twitterati and the pop-media, it looks like the Bad Orange Man is coming out ahead so far.
Oh yeah, the stock market is setting new record highs, so there’s no question what lesson Trump has learned from this exercise.
“This is an opinion: Collectively, Trump lost the exchange. Iran came out stronger, and Trump weaker, albeit at the cost of their military leader.”
Just one question, Mish. What is the color of the sky on your world?
Not so much Mish. I wouldn’t doubt if this scenario was coordinated. Let the Iranian’s save face in return for de-escalation. USA kicked them in the balls and the Iranians “slapped us in the face.” I’ll take that trade any day.
A lot of people are assuming this “assassination” of Solemani came from the US. Few have discussed the possibility that the whole thing was a backchannel negotiation between secular forces in the Iranian government, the mullahs and the CIA/State Dept to have Solemani killed. The mullahs are using his death to curry favor with terrorist groups. The secular forces don’t mind seeing the head of the snake (IRGC) cut off as they killed Iranian civilians for decades. The huge miss and “early warning” system of missiles at the bases in Iraq fired away from people is a dead giveaway IMO that this whole thing was a win-win for Trump (gets people to look away from impeachment and focus on national security), Mullahs (can recruit more terrorists) and Iranian citizens (most hate the IRGC).
That is an interesting theory, and given what has happened so far, not one I would dismiss out of hand.
That is my working theory based on what I’ve seen. The CIA would not have presented this to Trump unless they had tacit approval from leaders in Iran. The whole thing looks like a big setup from the start.
Seems like Mish should have waited to hear Trump’s response. Mr. Market certainly thinks it’s a winner.
I think being freaked out by this whole theatre was reasonable. Now I am just happy that things are calming down.
Mish’s only mistake is to conclude that this is somehow a no-win situation for Trump. If this ends with an (at least partial) removal of troops from the ME, it’s a huge win.
We’re not leaving the ME, that’s not how Empire works. If Trump attempts such a thing, he’ll face a sudden impeachment surge or something else. We’re staying until we’re forced out.
stillCJ, playing the game is fine, but please tell me you don’t believe this post 2009 rally was caused by market fundamentals. The Fed has printed like mad and we’ve got companies trading at 100x earnings!
Oh really??? 🙂
100x earnings? That’s nothing, I’ve made lots of profit on a company that’s 200x earnings; and then there is TSLA which has no profit and a market cap more than F & GM combined. (I have never owned TSLA). There are also solid, high dividend co.s with PEs below 20. I agree, I do not like the Fed over-ruling market fundamentals but I have not let that prevent me from taking advantage of it.
Mr. Market is a heavily medicated drug addict. He is not going down in earnest until his organs start to liquefy.
Observer sounds like someone who has missed out on the Big Bull Market.
Guilty as charged. Does that make my comment about Central Bank intervention in this market any less correct?
FUCK ! ain t gonna be no fckn WW then ?! Bought gold this morning at 1600$ ….f f f f f f ! …….ps: just kiddin’…
Both sides got very lucky, especially Iran, that there were no casualties from the missiles. Both sides got their message across. The US message is: we see your proxy war BS and we have the means and intent to hold you accountable. Iran message is: we aren’t completely impotent, but we don’t want to actually fight the US.
The notion that Trump must have decided on killing Solemeini without considered analysis is silly (I won’t say TDS). He would have received options and intel from Pentagon et al that we have not heard. And before Mish’s #1 fact “assassination” there is a lot of history and context, such as the Dec 27th attacks.
“The notion that Trump must have decided on killing Solemeini without considered analysis is silly…”
And yet that is exactly what every senator and representative present at the Congressional briefing, Democrat AND Republican, reported.
The goat entrails before me reveal nothing.
I think I will retire to my cave and try to make sense of the shadows on the wall.
Fortunately cooler heads prevailed here. On the surface Trump can claim an easy win, assassinating the most popular figure in Iran with basically zero retaliation.
However, some interesting info emerged afterward. Pompeo went around to rally another coalition of the willing, only to find that nobody was on board. The strongest endorsement was from Salvini in Italy, but he’s not in power now. Even Israel distanced themselves from the whole affair, which is kind of hilarious.
It looks like Russia and China pushed for deescalation behind the scenes, which means they’re playing a long game. They’re probably right to do so, since our MIC is bloated and corrupt and the Fed is printing to the moon.
I agree. Waiting for the US to collapse under its own weight of corruption and debt is probably the best and only winning strategy for Iran. Relative to their history, they might not have to wait all that long.
Of course, since the US is my home I would prefer very much that does not happen. Lawmakers and our Federal Reserve do not seem to be concerned, however.
Except for the latest ultimatum about preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon, I give President Trump’s speech a thumbs up. (To be clear, I am not in favor of Iran having nuclear weapons; I just think it is a dumb idea to keep issuing ultimatums, drawing lines in the sand, etc. Iran is certainly well aware by now that the US does not want them to have nuclear weapons.)
This seems more like a win for Trump to me. Iranian attack helped their leaders save face and diffuse situation. Trump showed restraint and I can’t see not going to war and not suffering any casualties as a loss for Trump.
Strongly disagree here. As it stands Iran’s counter attack was toothless and either intentionally didn’t hit US troops or incompetently didn’t hit US troops. If it stands here Trump publicly took out a high ranking Iranian, as well as multiple other targets and the response cost zero US lives, and Iranian rhetoric won’t cover what is supposedly a major leadership loss for how they conduct their operations while providing a large disincentive to his successor.
“Ten Things We Know”
1). “Trump assassinated Qassem Soleimani on foreign soil, in Iraq.”
We still do not really know that Trump ordered this attack despite his claim to have ordered it. A good boss takes responsibility for the actions of those who report to him, even when the actions were against policy. Trump fired NSC anti-Iran war hawk, Richard Goldberg, shortly after the Soleimani strike. It’s possible that Trump did order the strike after false information from hawks and Bibi (who no longer wants war).
4). “Trump twice threatened to attack Iranian cultural sites if Iran responded. Attacking cultural sites is a war crime.”
It is not uncommon for leaders to talk in a bellicose manner while negotiating behind the scenes.
5). “Iraq threatened to boot out the US out of the country in response to the strike.”
I predict that Trump will be removing US troops from Iraq (& Syria) in the near future.
6). “Iran is capable of of a precision hit with dozens of missiles. There were no casualties as Iran clearly intended.”
From the looks of it, Iran’s strike was agreed to by all sides including US & Iraq. It allowed them to save face (once we leave Iraq) without going to a wider war.
8). “US allies backed away from supporting Trump and instead called for de-escalation.”
That will help cover Trump if ‘responds’ no further and gets US out of Iraq.
Iran backed down stating it did not seek escalation or war.”
And Bibi changed his ‘mind’ (or had it changed for him) about wanting US to go to war with Iran. As I said, this was pre-arranged and agreed to.
I didn’t vote for Trump but, if he did not order Soleimani’s killing or it he ordered it on bad advice, then what has transpired represents a good job on Trump’s fault.
Trump is surrounded by warmongers in the NSC and also has to contend with the blood-lusting US Senate. He can hire as well as fire NSC personnel but cannot appoint Cabinet secretaries, such as Pompeo and Esper, without the advise & consent of the Senate. He may have an easier time doing so now, as no one in his right mind wants war with Iran, including we the people.
So far, the results of the Trump presidency, whether he intended them or not, have been better than that of his four predecessors.
I would not say it is ridiculous. It is a bit premature, maybe, but not ridiculous.
The US and Iran are lobbing live rockets and missiles at each other, purposely “limiting” the effect. That is a very dangerous game. All it would take for the whole thing to blow up in everyone’s faces is for one exchange to accidentally kill a few more people than intended.
Meanwhile, what about the fact Iran has publicly announced its intent to enrich its nuclear material to weapons grade? Israel and the US have issued strong ultimatums tied to that decision. Does everyone believe now after all of Israel’s brinkmanship that they will be okay with Iran being a nuclear power? Really? Israel is going to back down and say they did not really mean what they have said for the last dozen years and everything is okay now?
No such thing as premature when pre-emptive attacks continue to be executed & presented as legitimate. The big old warplanes are on standby:
“…the Pentagon has dispatched a bomber strike force consisting of six B-52 heavy bombers to the US military base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, a British colonial possession that is within striking distance of Iran but beyond the range of Iran’s longest-range missiles.”
Selected quote from “Iran strikes US bases in Iraq as Pentagon deploys B-52 bombers” link to wsws.org
Mish, your antipathy for Trump is revealed every time you analyze one of his actions. As others in the comments have stated, I think Trump may come out will on this.
Agree with this. Mish does not understand geopolitics of the middle east. He should stick to elections in Britain.
Mish is consistently a pacifist. He opposes any military presence overseas whatsoever. Right or wrong, that has long been his position.
This is too simplistic a view. The CIA/State Department are known for pulling off operations like this with the approval of civilian forces in countries like Iran that hate both the IRGC and the mullahs. I wouldn’t even discount the Iranian foreign minister wanting to get rid of Solemani and making the proposal to the US.
I’m not saying it isn’t too simplistic. I was just explaining the point from which Mish starts, and that is that he opposes any military action overseas. Once you understand that, his position here is the one you would expect.
Mr. Shedlock is a nihilistic libertarian. Of course, from Max Stirner on the whole philosophy has been intellectually empty, many of them opposed American entry into WWII. If one advocates for foreign engagement, they always accuse you of being a war monger.
All the war fear mongering here is ridiculous. You may not like the elimination of a terrorist but it looks like Trump won based upon the news this morning. The Iranian “attack” was a just a face saving act.
Iran used Trump’s moron election distraction to withdraw completely from nuclear arms treaty. Well done, moron Trump, you gained nothing and gave the world nuclear armed Iran.
The American obsession with Iran is about oil and natural gas link to oilprice.com
Iran buying time,to build a coalition for a ground offensive,they saw how US cut and run the minute they take even a single casuality,why?US has no real stomach for a fight,they love war,as long as it’s dropping bombs,fighting on the ground,and it’s cut n run for the exits.
Could be that you are describing yourself? You sound a little jittery.
A lot of smoke and mirrors going on here . I don’t think anyone really knows the dynamics in play completely . General Soleimani was over the secret police and may have been the most powerful and feared man in Iran . He reportedly had ordered killed many Iranians in the latest uprisings . The Iranians even the ayatollahs may have felt they could not change direction for the fear of him taking them out . We will see in time . The reality is we can strike Iran when and where we want and we can take out their nuclear capability in short order and there is nothing they can do to stop us,if we really decide we want to . Mish has one big problem Muslims do destroy cultural sites when they take over and they do kill and persecute those who don’t convert to their beliefs . Anyone who doesn’t know the long history of Islam and their attempts to dominate and force their culture on others is naive. So in that since it has been a long running war for centuries and war is ugly .
The trade to kill Sulemani was worth it imo. The IRGC may have a new leader but he wont be travelling to Iraq or anywhere else anytime soon. The US cut off the head of the snake. Firing missiles into an empty US base is not proportional but Iran wants their people to believe it is. Trump will be emboldened to assassinate military leaders of other state sponsors of terrorism. By the way anyone who thinks the US is a state sponsor of terrorism doesnt understand the difference between normal war and asymmetric warfare on civilians by terrorists.
I agree. Just as Pakistan was furious when the US killed Bin Laden, but contented themselves with the response of imprisoning the doctor who identified him, Iran is furious with the killing of Soleimani , but chose a response that will not escalate the situation. It would seem that this is a one-and-done incident that will now de-escalate.
It may well have been a backchannel negotiation between the US and civilian representatives in the Iranian government who hated Soleimani and the IRGC. Whatever it was will be classified won’t see the light of day for at least 20 years.
All “cut(ting) off the head of the snake” accomplishes, is to strengthen it. Or, in many cases, cause it to splinter and multiply.
Exactly what “cutting off” the long time “head” of Libya accomplished. Until you now have Khalifa Haftar literally calling for full civilian (including women. In a Muslim country….) armament, in response to Turkey’s entry into the mix. Which, while always great from a legitimate governance perspective, is unlikely to mesh well with stated US/neocon goals of keeping ME populations servile, subservient and “manage”-able.
The Mullah state won’t splinter that easy. It’s still a lot deeper and more entrenched than Qaddafi’s regime was in its waning years. But like all living things, it will adapt and harden in response to adversity. All while the mixture of non and semi state operators Soleimani was cultivating, will now be less restrained in pursuing individual opportunities.
The military is currently saying that no servicemen were killed. They may well by lying. That would absolutely be the smart thing to do.
And if Iran can drop a dozen missiles on an American air field in Iraq, they can certainly dump a bunch on Saudi oil storage facilities. Trump had better back down.
There has been no official response. They say they are assessing the damage. The only response I have seen is about Iraqi troops
“Iraq’s joint military command said there were no casualties among Iraqi military forces.”
“Trump had better back down” – you forgot the /sarcasm
How could they get away with such a lie for long??
Yesterday they said 11 were injured. I expect in a few months many of those 11 will quietly die of their injuries. The media has already moved on.
Mish, You are pissing in the wind. Most Mericans enjoy watching a real war criminal’s daughter host a morning talk show. Judith Miller became a political show guest darling after her false stories about Iraqi WMD’s. War criminal and incompetent national security advisor, clueless on the lead up to 9/11, Condi Rice, is continually feted by the USTA and other organizations.
-4. Trump twice threatened to attack Iranian cultural sites if Iran responded. Attacking cultural sites is a war crime.
-5. Iraq threatened to boot out the US out of the country in response to the strike.
You broke it, you keep it. True words from another disappointing liar.
Although I do generally agree with Mish’s post above and I do think that Trump has mismanaged this, let me question one point that he made.
“9. Trump backed down from his threat to hit Iran hard if they counterattacked.”
Did Iran truly counterattack if the reports are that no US serviceman were hurt? Literally at one of the bases “under attack” a reporter initially denied that there was an attack underway, claiming that there was just a drill with sirens and all was calm around the base…..
I sincerely don’t know what happened and I am guessing more news will come out today, but it sounds like Iran lobbed some missiles at empty sand near our bases. Then Iran can have the propaganda for their people of “striking back at America” without actually striking back at America, which could provoke Trump to escalate this thing more so.
Bottom line: Is it truly an attack if Iran intended to only hurt sand?
Although I don’t like Trump’s job performance, it would be wise of him to realize that attacking sand is not a true attack against the US (if that is all that happened) and to not respond in a way to escalate this thing further.
Would USA have assassinated General Soleimani in that way if Iran were a Nuclear Power?
So Iran will become more determined to become one as soon as possible & the USA will become more determined to stop them, how will they do that? A very unstable situation in my view.
That is what I was thinking last night too.
I think a lot depends on whether intelligence assessments genuinely conclude that Iran sees nuclear weapons as “haram” as is claimed. For there to be a genuine threat, Iran needs to accept that (1) building them is not “haram” and (2) using them is not “haram”.
Iran and states like it exist by externalising their enemies. I don’t believe that they are suicidal though, and using nuclear weapons would presumably be exactly that.
The USA and/or world is swimming against the tide by trying to stop them. Once something is invented its only a matter of time before it becomes mainstream. The sooner that is accepted and managed the better for everyone.
I agree. While postponing things is a good thing, nuclear weapons will sooner rather than later fall into the hands of terrorists eager to use them, and their use will become relatively commonplace. We need to accept that and prepare for the consequences.
I have a different take. If there are US casualties, then I revise my opinion.
This is a win-win for Trump and Iran. Trump has given Iran a bloody nose, and Iran will think twice about its constant agitation in the region. Is Khomeini next – that’s what he’s thinking.
As has been pointed out, while the media is obsessing about American intervention, nobody seems to comment on Iran’s meddling in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine.
Quite remarkable with all the defence systems in place that all those ballistic missiles got through. Not one of them shot down, only a couple of duds that didn’t explode.
Quite remarkable that not a single serviceman was killed or injured.
Recall the comments made earlier in the week by Trump (paraphrasing): any non proportional response will be met with hellfire.
So my guess is there is a backchannel. Pull the GIs back into shelters or off base, go ahead Iran, take your free shot.
Iran gets to go back to screaming “death to America”, Trump claims to have cut off the snake’s head and says that since no servicemen were injured, he’s going to ignore the provocation.
No escalation.
I think too many people are orienting themselves using the “unintelligent orange man child” caricature and forgetting the strategists who sit around him.
The only strategist I see at work here is John Bolton and that ilk. Please tell me there is more depth to this action than that because all I saw was a damn the unintended consequences approach from neocons.
But what were these “unintended consequences”?
Iran increasingly looks like the loser here.
Edited to add: it seems that many are of the view that the US doesn’t want a war because it doesn’t want boots on the ground. But the Iranian leadership must be very aware that the US could pulverize them back to the Stone Age with conventional weapons.
Iranians on the street would rise up against American occupation. They might be more sanguine about destruction of their hated leaders.
Iran could get sent back to the stone age with drones firing missiles. I agree with your take this is a win-win for Trump. The iranian mullahs and irgc look like the losers so far. The response wasnt proportional. Iran is playing with fire and they know it.
You’re wrong; smack in the middle of all this Iran withdrew from the nuclear treaty. So the escalation is that Trump gave Iran a free pass to build nuclear weapons, and gained nothing. It’s a huge loss, and the fact that Americans like you are too dumb to even follow that story shows how easily Iran is playing Trump.
I think you are over the target Jimmy.
This is my take on the scenario too. The missle attack by Iran was planned, the US government probably agreed to it. The whole thing was to save face.
Not really
Trump has backed off before – he is erratic and it never hurts his base support
Mish is fully right. Welcome to the neocons international way of making politic and wars; and last but not least MONEY. US is the champion in this matter of head of state manipulation but other powerful countries are not innocents either.
The US wanted 50 per cent of Irak oil revenues in exchange for repairing the country.(deeply damaged by the so called IRAKI WMD destruction process against Saddam).
The problem happened to be that the Chinese proposed to make the same repairs for far less (as they are far cheaper as everybody know). Iran was lobbying for that Chinese deal with the Irak Chias.
The previous Irak prime minister wanted to deal with the Chinese but Trump warned him that he would face civil unrests directed against Iran and him, pushing for his dismissal.
That is exactly what happened. He dismissed to avoid being killed by US proxies and a more cooperative prime minister took over.
Of course the last US bombings destroyed all these “political” efforts especially when the previous prime minister made a public revelation of all that at the Iraki parlement. Now Irak want the US to leave and the Chinese are waiting behind the door.
On the other hand, it might be more about upcoming Iraqi elections than going to war with Iran:
link to theepochtimes.com
““On the tactical level, the U.S. move might seem to be problematic with regards to relations with Iraq, however, it could offer Iraq a window to act against the Iranian influence at the right time due to the absence of Soleimani. It will be hard to predict how things will evolve in such an environment, but there is no doubt that Iraq still needs the U.S. right now,” he said.
Bazzi said Trump has opportunities to explore inside Iraq. “Now that he’s out of the picture, the Trump administration can push for its preferred candidate(s) and encourage a shift in the country towards Washington and away from Tehran,” said Bazzi.”
I guess the US isn’t the only country in the world in an election year, eh?
War with Iran is a ‘no-win scenario.’
But there is no indication that war is in the cards any more than it was at any time past few years.
This is mainly posturing and froth. Both sides are thumping chests demonstrating military resolve to their respective populations, allies and adversaries.
Either the stage is being set for WW III, which is unlikely.
Or it is being set for substantive negotiations.
Quite likely Soleimani was considered an obstacle to wherever the talks will be headed so he had to be taken out before proceeding further. His – and a few others in his network’s – death was worth the blowback thus far. Iran has said that having sent off its missiles, it wants no more. Honor is satisfied for now so Iran will do no more for now (seemingly). Remains to be seen if talks are in the offing.
You say Trump is in no-win.
Others might point out that a night or two of minor blowback – with no US casualties – is a small price to pay to take out the key commander of yr enemy.
But what do I know?
trump is clearly out of his league. but what do i know?
He’s looking fairly on top of it today. Why, clearly even God is on his side:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-vision-light-360×188.jpg
You wouldn’t be the first person to underestimate him.