The Killing Of Qassem Suleimani Is A Reminder That Iran Is Weak

The Federalist ^ | January 3, 2020 | John Daniel Davidson

[M Kehoe]

“Goats if he’s lucky. I’m betting he gets 72 Helen Thomas”

Ack!

5.56mm

[Saltmeat]

Two things struck me as incredible about this matter. First, that Suleimani thought he could travel in Iraq with total immunity and impunity. Second, the Iranians have to be shaken to their core concerning the ability of the U. S. intelligence service. They knew exactly where he was even though he was on the move, and they knew what his future plans were.

Not only are the Iranians militarily weak, but their intelligence apparatus is almost nil. They never knew what hit them.

My guess is that we had some help from Israel. Their very survival depends on their intelligence.

[1Old Pro]

They knew exactly where he was even though he was on the move, and they knew what his future plans were.

These terrorists were in the fast lane, which means telecommunication and not paper messages by courier. We can listen in to anyone anywhere antime.

[jdsteel]

“ My guess is that we had some help from Israel. Their very survival depends on their intelligence.”

My guess is the same.

[TXnMA]

One of those Iranian bathtub toys would never get inside a CBG -- much less within ramming range of the carrier.

CIWS (if nothing else) would see to that...

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

Kaslin :" The one who is to blame for this, is the peanut farmer from Georgia "

Only partially true.
Obungler helped to arm and finance him
Armed him : Benghazi
Finance him : $130 Billion on pallets

[CGVet58]

"... we could take out the Iranian army just as fast..."

sorry, disagree. different terrain: Iraq is Tank-friendly country in the southern half, pretty good road network, plentiful bases for support nearby, etc.

Iran is mountainous, poor roads, bad infrastructure, represents a more significant threat to an overwhelming % of world's oil tanker traffic which we guarantee the safety of (Bretton-Woods), far from support bases, etc.

that being said, yes we can put a world of hurt on them, but oil prices worldwide would skyrocket, bringing chaos, unintended consequences, foremost among them the guaranteed attacks against our Prez from the Quisling dhimmicrats and their Pravda MSM.

Better to keep the pressure/sanctions on, be ready to strike back surgically as we did here - and let the mullahs die from within... They're slowly dying, it's not hurting us to see them die a slow death, and their lashing out as they are looks so much like a punk being put in a chokehold, gasping as his arms flail about, that I enjoy getting another bowl of popcorn to watch! :-)

v/r

the JG

[EQAndyBuzz]

Blame Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

[grey_whiskers]

The cascade of blood and misery from that one fateful decision by Carter and his administration is impossible to calculate. It led to a modern holocaust in many ways and that is not overstated.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

Iran is mountainous, poor roads, bad infrastructure, represents a more significant threat to an overwhelming % of world's oil tanker traffic which we guarantee the safety of (Bretton-Woods), far from support bases, etc.

We wouldn't even need ground troops. It wouldn't have to be nation building, just army and navy destroying, along with all nuclear testing facilities and their Parliament building, hopefully while it's in session. Oil prices might spike but it wouldn't be anything like in the past because we are now energy independent and can pick up the slack. If you want to send troops it would be to occupy their oil fields until they pump enough to pay us for the inconvenience of destroying them.