Posted on 01/06/2020 8:22:14 PM PST by Zhang Fei
The Trump administration escalated its threats Sunday to hit Iran’s top leaders with military strikes if Tehran or its proxies carry out any attacks against American personnel or interests in retaliation for the U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani last week.
“We’re going to respond against the actual decision-makers, the people who are causing this threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a televised interview, expounding on a flurry of tweets a day earlier by President Trump, who warned that U.S. officials have already identified 52 possible Iranian targets, a highly symbolic number in the history of U.S.-Iran hostility.
Asked about Iran retaliating, Mr. Trump told reporters on Sunday night, “If it happens, it happens. If they do anything, there will be major retaliation.”
The messaging came amid mounting unsease in Washington and across the Middle East, where Iran’s supreme leader vowed to inflict “severe revenge” for Soleimani’s death and other Iranian officials said Sunday that Tehran will now no longer abide by any limits to its nuclear enrichment activities.
While any violent retaliation from Iran is unlikely before the regime in Tehran finishes a third day of official mourning for Soleimani — a period that runs through Monday — the escalating rhetoric coincides a flurry of unnerving developments since the Iranian commander was killed early Friday in Iraq by a U.S. Hellfire missile.
The Iraqi parliament, which American officials say has been increasingly undermined by influence from neighboring Iran in recent years, passed a bill Sunday calling for the expulsion of all U.S. troops from Iraq.
The bill remains subject to approval by Iraq’s top leaders and, even then, would allow at least a year for the some 5,200 U.S. troops in the country to withdraw.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
[Oh Yeah? Well Soleimani murdered HUNDREDS of Americans- why doesn’t the left think that HE was ‘dangerously provoking’ US? We kill a few TERRORIST scumbags, but soleimani can murder hundreds of soldiers and ambassadors, and the left don’t think HE was dangerous to us? To our soldiers?]
That’s the ticket! To hell with Marquess of Queensbury rules that apply only to us and not the savages we’re trying to rid the world of.
If the US really wants to kill me, can they do it? And none of them likes the answer they are getting.
So we kill Iran’s best military leader and then they become more dangerous?
Not buying this narrative.
The Rules of Engagement are a changin’
“or that the Olympics in Tokyo might be a risk for the US team.”
Seriously?
L
In the past, the Iranians could deny any involvement in terrorist acts because it was carried out by their proxies. If we are hit now, WE know and the WORLD knows it was the Iranians and there is no shield of plausible deniability that they can raise. This means the gloves will be off and all Hell will be unleashed on the Iranian leadership (i.e. regime change). This is why I feel their response will be muted. They need a way to save face, but any overt act that can and will be tied to them will be their demise and they know it. Do they have a death wish?
[This means the gloves will be off and all Hell will be unleashed on the Iranian leadership (i.e. regime change).]
I wonder if we get a deck of cards with the 52 targets.
This is an example of the 52 targets Trump is referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-wanted_Iraqi_playing_cards
It about more than 52 American hostages, as he stated almost glibly.
It’s a twofer.
Amen Brother
Who wants a “promotion” in Iran’s military right now?
They’ve got an opening for a new general.
It’s a lose-lose deal. Refuse to carry out your mission or become road kill like your predecessor.
You know, I was listening to Tucker tonight on FOX claiming that our invasion of Iraq had weakened us, but I have to believe we’ve learned a lot, and everyone knows that to be true. We’ve made a lot of mistakes, but I think we are learning. It’s a new day.
[This is an example of the 52 targets Trump is referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most-wanted_Iraqi_playing_cards
It about more than 52 American hostages, as he stated almost glibly.
It’s a twofer.]
[You know, I was listening to Tucker tonight on FOX claiming that our invasion of Iraq had weakened us]
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-10/54219-oco_spending.pdf
* WWII cost 50% of production a year, and lasted 4 years, meaning that we flushed 2 years of economic output paying for that war.
Cut the head off of a snake and the snake dies. I remember reading about how Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) was informed early in the battle of Waterloo that his gunners had Napoleon in their sights and requested permission to fire on him. Wellington denied the request, and was reported to have said “It is not the business of commanders to be firing on one another”. Imagine the lives that might have been saved on both sides if he had decided the other way. In wars with adversaries like Iran, where the people largely disagree with their leaders, the most effective way to end hostilities may be to target leadership. In contrast, popular wars, like the American Revolution would likely have continued had Washington been killed.
p
Cultural targets simply means, no more hiding in mosques. If the roaches run into the mosque to hide, Obama would not let us blast it.
The gloves are off now.
Hopefully, the lesson we learned is to know when to declare victory and walk away, leaving your enemy bloody, vanquished, and terrified of you, rather than long term occupation and nation building. Sure, we now have the best counter insurgency capabilities in the world. But no one wants to be in a war where you have to use that capability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.