You said, “striking without human collateral damage”. After all, it was an unmanned drone that was shot down.
So I asked what all these “rich” targets are and now all you come up with are manned targets, except maybe the runways. Not so rich, is it.
I think Trump is right. If you want to retaliate against the drone strike, it has to be unmanned. I would go further and say it has to relate to the flights, manned or unmanned, overseeing the security of the Straits or international space. I have no love at all or Iran, but you are not talking about retaliation for this drone strike, as your original post did.
There is a right way to handle this, and it looks like Trump is doing it. I want Iran to collapse without the Euro-peons thinking they need to get involved. It appears that our Thumb is squeezing even harder, now, and we look composed and in control. It is a good approach, measured and reasonable.
Not at all like your last reply.
Like I said, Iran had no second thoughts about going after our troops in Iraq and elsewhere; and when it wasn’t them directly, they had their proxies going after our troops and killing them. So, I ask you, are our troops not human targets and/or collateral human victims when Iran goes after them?
So, what the heck is the difference if Iran suffers collateral human damage, especially if they are in the military?
We would NEVER be able to attack Iran in defense of our troops or our equipment and overseas interests, if we can never go after their human assets. They win, we lose, according to YOUR strategy and that of the democrats.