Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[cubby]

https://expresso.pt/internacional/20...anos-no-Iraque

It's portuguese news

Basically the first paragraph reads: This sunday several missiles hit a military base in Iraq where there are american military. The information was forwarded by France Presse who cites military sources which account for the firing of already 4 missiles. Reuters also mentions that this base has been hit by 7 mortars.

Edit: I assume this is the Reuters' piece cited https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...KBN1ZB0I0?il=0

Ah, thank you. I wonder if this is more of the same or an increase in attacks since the General's assassination.

[Grimbold21]

Ah, thank you. I wonder if this is more of the same or an increase in attacks since the General's assassination.

Or increased media attention due to the current events

[JohnBrown1917]

You're talking about elections in Iran? Really?

If the clone is the same guy, maybe he'll think twice about ordering attacks on foreign countries.

I can't even believe you think the assassination of someone who directly attacked us is even remotely related to what Russia does in Europe.

We aren't responsible for shitty people who react badly to good policies. How many Embassy attacks do we sit on our hands before we do something? If you recall, as well, sinking an Iranian ship and bombing a training camp were also on the target list - what's the difference?

Yeah, it would be good for the US to learn from that... oh wait..


So when is the next general/diplomat getting killed by you guys tricking him into coming to peace talks?

[cubby]

Yeah, it would be good for the US to learn from that... oh wait..


So when is the next general/diplomat getting killed by you guys tricking him into coming to peace talks?

Like I've said, over and over again, the policy is sound, the execution is...well...deplorable.

[Thekri]

https://expresso.pt/internacional/20...anos-no-Iraque

It's portuguese news

Basically the first paragraph reads: This sunday several missiles hit a military base in Iraq where there are american military. The information was forwarded by France Presse who cites military sources which account for the firing of already 4 missiles. Reuters also mentions that this base has been hit by 7 mortars.

Edit: I assume this is the Reuters' piece cited https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...KBN1ZB0I0?il=0

A buddy and me were just laughing about this. Essentially the media is now just reporting random rocket and mortar attacks on US bases to generate clicks. This has absolutely nothing in common with a ballistic missile strike. These small scale attacks happen all the time on tons of bases, and they are completely irrelevant. Ever two years or so an American gets injured or killed, but usually everyone just complains about having to wake up and go sit in a bunker.

For reference, Bagram Airfield in Parwan Province in Afghanistan had 78 separate rocket attacks in 2018. Each attack was between 1-8 rockets. Bagram is far from the only base with that kind of numbers, a few years ago some bases were getting 20+ per month. The attacks in question are old artillery rockets fired by leaning them against sandbags and piles of dirt. In my experience about 60% of these rockets fail to even hit the base, let alone something significant in the base (That means they missed a target that is 15 miles wide from the range of about a mile away). The warheads weigh about 1 lb each, and don't do any significant damage. The dud rate is about 70% on the warhead actually exploding, most of the damage inflicted is by fires caused by the rocket motor. In the area I was operating, the insurgents were removing the fuses to pack in more explosives, which had the rather hilarious effect of there being nothing that caused the explosives to detonate, and shot the dud rate up to 100%. It had the less hilarious effect of scattering chunks of explosives everywhere when they hit though, which was annoying to our EOD.

TLDR Version: This attack is absolutely not news worthy, this is business as usual. 4 Iraqis got injured because Iraqis never take shelter and wander around under rocket attack.

[caervek]

A buddy and me were just laughing about this. Essentially the media is now just reporting random rocket and mortar attacks on US bases to generate clicks. This has absolutely nothing in common with a ballistic missile strike. These small scale attacks happen all the time on tons of bases, and they are completely irrelevant.

The entire reason this thread exists is because one of those "completely irrelevant" attacks killed a US contractor and Trump responded with a ballistic missile strike then an assassination of a high ranking foreign political/military leader.

[Thekri]

The entire reason this thread exists is because one of those "completely irrelevant" attacks killed a US contractor and Trump responded with a ballistic missile strike then an assassination of a high ranking foreign political/military leader.

No, the US was responding to an unrelated series of protests and attacks on the US Green zone in Bagdad, not the death of a contractor in Kirkuk (Which is quite a way north of Bagdad). In addition, the US claims that the attack was based on an imminent future attack, not a historical one. While this has not held up to scrutiny from anyone that has seen the evidence, there is nothing to tie the strike to the Kirkuk attack.

It is an order of magnitude more likely it was the much more televised protests/attack on the US embassy that led to the strike.

[Draco-Onis]

US actions in the Middle East since the 1980s are the least of the Middle East's issues. The core issue is lack of development, democracy and opportunity for a growing population of young men in particular, often single, who are bored and frustrated.

We've destabilized countries, economies, interfered in democracies in the name of oil, killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians. How can you say with a straight face that we are the least of the issues in the ME? Do you think Iran's economy would be the way it is if the US didn't keep interfering? How about Iraq? I think you are underselling the colossal fuck ups we've done.

The US could pull its forces from the Middle East and abandon it to its fate - something I think we should somewhat do to one degree or another. But it wouldn't change anything.

it's too late to pull out we've spilled too much blood, spent too much money and created too many enemies in the process.

- - - Updated - - -

You're talking about elections in Iran? Really?

If the clone is the same guy, maybe he'll think twice about ordering attacks on foreign countries.

I can't even believe you think the assassination of someone who directly attacked us is even remotely related to what Russia does in Europe.

We aren't responsible for shitty people who react badly to good policies. How many Embassy attacks do we sit on our hands before we do something? If you recall, as well, sinking an Iranian ship and bombing a training camp were also on the target list - what's the difference?

The good policy of pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal? we were up to ZERO attacks when the deal was in place against US assets with no assassinations for "deterrent". I am dumbfounded that people think bombs are going to solve our middle east issues as flawed as the deal was it did more for our cause than this shit show. How many times can we do this song and dance until we learn? carrot and stick the US is all stick no carrot.

[I Push Buttons]

No, the US was responding to an unrelated series of protests and attacks on the US Green zone in Bagdad, not the death of a contractor in Kirkuk (Which is quite a way north of Bagdad). In addition, the US claims that the attack was based on an imminent future attack, not a historical one. While this has not held up to scrutiny from anyone that has seen the evidence, there is nothing to tie the strike to the Kirkuk attack.

It is an order of magnitude more likely it was the much more televised protests/attack on the US embassy that led to the strike.

The attack on Kirkuk resulted in US retaliation, which led to the storming of the Embassy.

[Gaidax]

We've destabilized countries, economies, interfered in democracies in the name of oil, killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians. How can you say with a straight face that we are the least of the issues in the ME? Do you think Iran's economy would be the way it is if the US didn't keep interfering? How about Iraq? I think you are underselling the colossal fuck ups we've done.



it's too late to pull out we've spilled too much blood, spent too much money and created too many enemies in the process.

- - - Updated - - -



The good policy of pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal? we were up to ZERO attacks when the deal was in place against US assets with no assassinations for "deterrent". I am dumbfounded that people think bombs are going to solve our middle east issues as flawed as the deal was it did more for our cause than this shit show. How many times can we do this song and dance until we learn? carrot and stick the US is all stick no carrot.

This "deal" was no deal at all.

It was a complete sham, because it was completely one sided in favor of Iran. and Iran of course played nice given all the perks with little concessions (while still developing uncovered methods of delivery) happily, while using all that deal generated money to sponsor their terrorist proxies that caused Yemen war, helped Assad to win and Suleimani was the head of it all.

This deal was the finest example of Obama's shitty foreign policy of kicking the can where it won't be his problem to deal with his foreign policy fuckups.

Obama is a great guy, but this deal was almost criminal in every way imaginable, really. Starting from not addressing valid concerns of various countries in ME and ending up with him pushing it through with executive powers, which of course resulted in it being scrapped just as easily. Whole Obama's second term foreign policy was an unmitigated disaster, whether it's China, Syria, Ukraine or Iran.


As for Iran itself, if there would be no US to counter it - shit would be MUCH and WAY worse in ME. Much of shit we deal with now is a direct result of impotent US foreign policy for the last decade and counting. Trump is not much better, but I guess there is a more realistic understanding of what the fuck is going on in WH, even if I don't think they can do anything about both due to their capabilities and the magnitude of the fuckup snowballed over last decade.

TBH, there should have been Trump back in 2012 or so, because back then it could be managed and maybe actual deal would have been pushed through. Now, it's just almost desperate catching up game.

Sometimes you have to be bold and you have to make your adversaries wary, you can't just be nice and fuzzy all around the clock and expect the other side to return the courtesy unconditionally. This is what deterrence is and it was eroded last decade.

[Draco-Onis]

This "deal" was no deal at all.

It was a complete sham, because it was completely one sided in favor of Iran. and Iran of course played nice give than (while still developing uncovered methods of delivery) happily, while using all that deal generated money to sponsor their terrorist proxies that caused Yemen war, helped Assad to win and Suleimani was the head of it all.

This deal was the finest example of Obama's shitty foreign policy of kicking the can where it won't be his problem to deal with his foreign policy fuckups.

Obama is a great guy, but this deal is almost criminal, really.

And you are delusional Iranian operations are a pittance of their GDP even with "maximum pressure" they have increase the amount of money they spend on their terrorist proxies. It's pure fantasy that you are going to crush Iranians financing terrorism by destroying their economy, the deal as flawed as it was exposed the corruption within the regime because they no longer had the sanctions as cover as to why the country wasn't getting better. If you want the Iranian regime to fail you need to turn their people against them and you can't do that with a scapegoat like the US.

The nuclear deal achieved what it was meant to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons with stringent checks in place and gave us the ability to check wherever we suspected there was nuclear activity. Your uncovered methods is conspiracy theory purported by the nut job below.



I suggest you stop listening to crooked politicians who love bribes not the UN, US under Trump found anything they were complying. Nuclear activities is not something you hide in your back alley somewhere.

[Gaidax]

It's not the matter of nuclear activities, it's matter of what Iran does in ME in the last decade which ALREADY led to a war in Yemen. You are so laser focused on the nuclear part of Iran's threat, that you don't even see what they are doing besides that.

US is not some sort of benevolent force, you don't have angels playing harps floating aside US Drones and missiles, but in between US and Iran - Iran is THE worse party. Unrestrained Iran would lead to real big ass ME war, because you are dreaming if you think Saudis, Arab nations and Israel would just happily sit back and watch Iran becoming a genuine existential threat. And you know what - all parties in ME are shit to the lesser or greater extent, but all in all Iran is the bigger evil at the moment, even to its own people.

- - - Updated - - -

And no, it's not "pittance" - they invest MASSIVE resources into their proxies, whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas or Houtis. And yes, the last year crunch definitely hurts all these 3, which is a good thing for my personal safety as well.

You don't get to lecture me, I had missiles exploding above my fucking head in the middle of my hometown. Know how nice it is to lie on pavement while you have interception booms overhead? Thrilling. This shit in a big part was paid by Iran.

[cubby]

The good policy of pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal? we were up to ZERO attacks when the deal was in place against US assets with no assassinations for "deterrent". I am dumbfounded that people think bombs are going to solve our middle east issues as flawed as the deal was it did more for our cause than this shit show. How many times can we do this song and dance until we learn? carrot and stick the US is all stick no carrot.

Was that the policy I was referring to during this entire conversation? Oh, whoops - nope, I wasn't. Next time address what I said, not what you imagined I said.

The targeting of indivduals responsible for ordering attacks on the U.S. is a good policy. MUCH better than sinking some random Iranian frigate or blowing up a "training base". To date NO ONE has argued why those were better than killing the guy who ordered the attack. NO ONE.

I wonder why.

Now, Trump pulling out of the Iran deal? Whoops. Just another flawed move by a flawed individual supported by Deplorables and weak-minded GOP leaders without morality of honor. But that's another conversation.

[Draco-Onis]

Was that the policy I was referring to during this entire conversation? Oh, whoops - nope, I wasn't. Next time address what I said, not what you imagined I said.

The targeting of indivduals responsible for ordering attacks on the U.S. is a good policy. MUCH better than sinking some random Iranian frigate or blowing up a "training base". To date NO ONE has argued why those were better than killing the guy who ordered the attack. NO ONE.

I wonder why.

Now, Trump pulling out of the Iran deal? Whoops. Just another flawed move by a flawed individual supported by Deplorables and weak-minded GOP leaders without morality of honor. But that's another conversation.

I did not advocate for any of those responses you are putting together some false choice there are tons of options between doing nothing and assassinating a member of the government breaking international law. You have made no case as to why killing him is worth any of the price we have paid for what has happened as a result including the deaths of innocent people.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not the matter of nuclear activities, it's matter of what Iran does in ME in the last decade which ALREADY led to a war in Yemen. You are so laser focused on the nuclear part of Iran's threat, that you don't even see what they are doing besides that.

US is not some sort of benevolent force, you don't have angels playing harps floating aside US Drones and missiles, but in between US and Iran - Iran is THE worse party. Unrestrained Iran would lead to real big ass ME war, because you are dreaming if you think Saudis, Arab nations and Israel would just happily sit back and watch Iran becoming a genuine existential threat. And you know what - all parties in ME are shit to the lesser or greater extent, but all in all Iran is the bigger evil at the moment, even to its own people.

- - - Updated - - -

And no, it's not "pittance" - they invest MASSIVE resources into their proxies, whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas or Houtis. And yes, the last year crunch definitely hurts all these 3, which is a good thing for my personal safety as well.

You don't get to lecture me, I had missiles exploding above my fucking head in the middle of my hometown. Know how nice it is to lie on pavement while you have interception booms overhead? Thrilling. This shit in a big part was paid by Iran.

The numbers show it is pittances compared to their GDP if you think it's a massive amount of resources then post the numbers to prove it. Iran's spends 1 billion dollars a year that's out of a 440 billion dollar a year economy it's chump change. There's zero evidence of "crunch" if anything they have expanded their reach in more countries.

[cubby]

I did not advocate for any of those responses you are putting together some false choice there are tons of options between doing nothing and assassinating a member of the government breaking international law. You have made no case as to why killing him is worth any of the price we have paid for what has happened as a result including the deaths of innocent people.

I wasn't trying to say you did advocate for those choices. I was pointing out that those were the "reasonable" options given to Trump, and no one can explain why those were "better" killing the guy who ordered the attack.

The policy doesn't have to be "worth the price" of an insanely run country like Iran. Their reaction isn't our fault. They targeted the United States, and we killed the person who ordered the attack. I realize it isn't that simple, of course, but to some extent it should be. Iran's unreasonable response to a reasonable policy isn't the U.S.' fault.

Now, you brought up the Iran Nuclear Deal, and I agree pulling out of it was a very bad idea.

[Skroe]

We've destabilized countries, economies, interfered in democracies in the name of oil, killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians. How can you say with a straight face that we are the least of the issues in the ME? Do you think Iran's economy would be the way it is if the US didn't keep interfering? How about Iraq? I think you are underselling the colossal fuck ups we've done.



it's too late to pull out we've spilled too much blood, spent too much money and created too many enemies in the process.

I'm not. But I'm saying the endemic issues of the region beyond that (and predate that) are worse. Way way worse. We certainly haven't helped, but even absent us, the lines drawn at the end of World War I, the endemic dictatorships, the House of Saud, the lack of Islamic religious form and so forth act as far greater generators of destabilization and danger.

And the US should absolutely keep doing what its doing to Iran's economy. That is muscular foreign policy. That's coercion. We do that elsewhere too because it works.

The good policy of pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal? we were up to ZERO attacks when the deal was in place against US assets with no assassinations for "deterrent". I am dumbfounded that people think bombs are going to solve our middle east issues as flawed as the deal was it did more for our cause than this shit show. How many times can we do this song and dance until we learn? carrot and stick the US is all stick no carrot.

I'll say this once again: the US never should have entered the Iranian nuclear deal unless it also dealt with Iran's ballistic missile program and operated on a far longer time table than the ~10-15 year timeframe of the agreed to deal. It also never should have entered into force without requiring 67 votes in the Senate as executive agreements of this magnitude are utter rubbish and shouldn't be pursued as a matter of principle.

But that being said, once in the deal, leaving it was foolhardy and a big ass own-goal on our part.

But I'm sick to death of people thinking the Iran deal was some triumph. Obama's NewSTART deal with Russia was a triumph. I've cataloged how and why for years. The Iran deal was a farce. The same administration that produced a gold standard for diplomacy also produced a Cleveland steamer in the form of the Iran deal. Now that we're out of the Iran deal, so long as we lament that we left (under the principle of something is better than nothing), we should be free to point out that it was a really bad deal and Obama was a fool for entering it, and the West gave away far too much in order to achieve *something* with Iran.

As for carrots and sticks, as I explained above, there is no carrot Iran is legitimately interested in from us that is prefferible to their goal of regional hegemony. It's a very contemporary western mindset to think that if the carrots were greater Iran would respond. Contemporary westerners at large, overly informed by highly selective events of the 20th century (mostly involving the US and USSR) do not understand power politics which are older and generally more successful for a country engaging in them.

The US needs more sticks towards Iran. And Russia. And China. And North Korea. And fewer carrots. Because their ambitions will not be sated by some little deal with the US. That only deferrs the conflict and buys time for them to prepare to push their power further in the future.

Consider the INF Treaty's failure. Gorbachev's Soviet government found the treaty expressedly in the failing USSR's interests. Just under 20 years later Putin's Russian government decides that it is no longer in its interests. That is 2006. Bush and Obama spend years keeping Russia's violation of the INF Treaty on the DL, even from Congress, to try and (with carrots) entice Russia to adhere to the treaty, even as it is flagrantly violating it. It is 2016, a decade later, before Russia is openly declared in breach and 2019 until the US took advantage of it's rights under the treat in response to Russia's violations and formally withdrew.

From Russia's angle, the INF Treaty makes no sense for them. Putting ourselves in their shoes, if they feel a military threat from the US - which they do because the US exists - they are objectively acting in their interests to push INF aside. It makes more sense for them to have Intermediate Range missiles and hold all of Europe at risk, than it does to agree to any amount of US carrots. Putin's violation treaty was unacceptable to us, and our efforts (and NATO's efforts) to calmly and optimistcally bring them back into compliance were well executed and intentioned. But there was no world where Russia was ever getting more by playing ball with the US than it would get by building post-INF Treaty weapons.

This is something contemporary Westerners are having a hell of a time dealing with. Even at the upper echelons. Obama's foreign policy team just could not grasp why China would island build and hack and engage in break neck military rearmament, because the team members were comfortably living in a world where "win-wins" were always desirable. They had no tools for traditional zero-sum foreign policy. It's the same thing with North Korea - they will never denuclearize. And it is ultimately the same thing with Iran. A multi-generational struggle to become hegemonic in the Middle East, as they see they are entitled to, brings far greater rewards than any carrots we can offer them. But it is also entirely against our interests in the region, and in the interests of global security.

So basically, nice 1990s foreign policy, but Vlad the Invader, Jinping the Island Builder, Khameni the Conqueror and Rocketman shot it to death in the open over the last decade, and too many westerners just haven't realized how dead it is yet.

This is a big part of why I say the western world isn't ready for the New Cold War. Put aside the weapons programs... it doesn't even have the mindset yet. And frankly I doubt it will until China invades and "restores harmony" to some "unstable" country in an easy, low risk victory to test drive its new and growing expeditionary military power in an analog to the US's Invasion of Panama. And make no mistake. That is coming. Probably this decade. And US commentators would ask "why would China do this". And the answer is clear as day: they were building expeditionary forces... what do you think they were going to do with it.

Many in US is just ideologically in an obsolete place in the changing global security scene. Obama engaged in incorrect snark when he said Putin's 19th century foreign policy was out of place in the 21st century. Actually, it is perfecty at home in it. It is Obama's 1990s foreign policy that is out of place in a world where the Long Peace is rapidly being lost.

But really, let's keep offering carrots to the Iranians who have no interest in them in perpetuity.

[JohnBrown1917]

I did not advocate for any of those responses you are putting together some false choice there are tons of options between doing nothing and assassinating a member of the government breaking international law. You have made no case as to why killing him is worth any of the price we have paid for what has happened as a result including the deaths of innocent people.

- - - Updated - - -



The numbers show it is pittances compared to their GDP if you think it's a massive amount of resources then post the numbers to prove it. Iran's spends 1 billion dollars a year that's out of a 440 billion dollar a year economy it's chump change. There's zero evidence of "crunch" if anything they have expanded their reach in more countries.

Its also important to note that now no country the Us is hostile too will trust any invitation for peace talks, or even help the US with peace talks as a middle-man. They really fucked over their supposed ally, Iraq, by using them like that.

And now they act all surprised that Iraq wants them to leave.

[Skroe]

I did not advocate for any of those responses you are putting together some false choice there are tons of options between doing nothing and assassinating a member of the government breaking international law. You have made no case as to why killing him is worth any of the price we have paid for what has happened as a result including the deaths of innocent people.

There's been no price paid by the US. And the first layers of restoring deterrence have been successfully set.

Internationally, it's gone exactly as I anticipated.

This from 1-03-2020, one day after he was sent to hell.

Most countries that we want respect from will get over it In short order. This will not override our mutual interests.

This is from 1-05-2020.

None of this really matters or will have any effect. I don’t know what to tell you. Countries are not nearly so principled. They are interest driven. Harming their interests in the name of principle, on behalf of Iran, is simply not a thing.

No one will do squat diplomatically because the Us drones a particular Iranian bad guy. That’s more of the crazy hyperbole that isn’t doing anything by leading to you folks terrorizing themselves.

When the Us doesn’t go an invade Iran, I’m going to expect a lot of walk backs. And legitimately the only thing I will have to say is “you replaced prudence with a pathological fear of consequences”

This is from the former French Ambassador to the US, UN and Israel. This is what the other powers in the world see.


It is now 1/12/2020.

There is no invasion of Iran and the international community is more absorbed with Iran shooting down an airliner than it is us killing Soleimani. Exactly as predicted. And this is why.

I mean frankly folks just do not understand why modern nation states go to war and how difficult it is truly push one into it unless they have already adopted that policy (which clearly neither the US and Iran have).

Multiple times in this thread people have referenced Arch Duke Ferdinand. There is precisely nothing relevant about that comparison. Before World War II the primary rationale for governing by a regime was security and territorial expansion through conquest. The post-WWII rationale - economic expansion and trade - was not really a thing given that global merchantilist barriers persisted until after the war.

Ferdinand was an excuse to go to war. There countries involved were ready for one. The US and Iran are simply not and neither will this be an excuse.

This is a dead end you're walking down. For. Some. Reason.

- - - Updated - - -

Its also important to note that now no country the Us is hostile too will trust any invitation for peace talks, or even help the US with peace talks as a middle-man. They really fucked over their supposed ally, Iraq, by using them like that.

And now they act all surprised that Iraq wants them to leave.

Who should we be having peace talks with precisely?

Russia?
China?
Iran?
North Korea?

How stereo-typically western of you thinking that Peace talks are an end unto themselves. Is it some kind of ceremonial offering to the God of Peace?

Peace talks are one approach of establishing a relationship settlement and unless the relationship is ready for them, they are usually never productive and in fact, can be counter productive. You want a great example of this? Then-Secretary of State John Kerry trying to force the Israelis and Palestinians to the issue back in 2013 and 2014, until he was forced to abandon those endeavors when his attention had to be pulled to the ISIS conflict and the allied response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine. Democrats and John Kerry couldn't understand why neither the Israelis or the Palestinians were interested in such talks. But the reason was quite clear - both thought (and still think) they can advance their agenda further without peace talks. They engaged in peace talks previously because that was not the case.

So as to the US "being untrustworthy in peacetalks" or some half-baked whine like that, i challenge anyone to look at the countries I named and tell me that our bilateral relationship with any of them is at the point that forceful diplomacy can put our relations on a more sustainable path. That is simply not the case. Russia wants hegemony in Eurasia and the Middle East, before it will be ready for a settlement. Iran wants to expand it's Middle East influence against the Saudis first and US second. North Korea wants to make its nuclear arsenal more capable and larger (and they'll never give it up). And China is preparing for the New Cold War.

Westeners put far more value in peace than all of our adversaries do, who seek power and define peace as winning on their terms. Peace talks come when the equation is changed, so not soon. Westerners put value on it because we have so much to lose by a change of the status quo and think the other side is in the same position. The problem is, they do not. The other side mostly thinks they have more to gain through aggression than through peace, so they pursue that strategy.

[Kasierith]

Its also important to note that now no country the Us is hostile too will trust any invitation for peace talks, or even help the US with peace talks as a middle-man. They really fucked over their supposed ally, Iraq, by using them like that.

And now they act all surprised that Iraq wants them to leave.

The idea that the US invited Suleiman for peace talks does not appear to bear fruit with any measure of scrutiny on the chain of events. As two separate events, the US asked for Iraq to help set up negotiations, and Iraq was facilitating discussions between the Iranians and Sauds and other groups. In fact, it appears that Suleiman was present that day because he was meeting with Hezbollah, not because he was coming out for peace talks.

But please, tell me more about this leader of Iranian special forces and direct funder and facilitator of terrorism being a nice, good guy who got arbitrarily blown up because he wanted peace and the US wanted war.

[Draco-Onis]

I wasn't trying to say you did advocate for those choices. I was pointing out that those were the "reasonable" options given to Trump, and no one can explain why those were "better" killing the guy who ordered the attack.

The policy doesn't have to be "worth the price" of an insanely run country like Iran. Their reaction isn't our fault. They targeted the United States, and we killed the person who ordered the attack. I realize it isn't that simple, of course, but to some extent it should be. Iran's unreasonable response to a reasonable policy isn't the U.S.' fault.

Now, you brought up the Iran Nuclear Deal, and I agree pulling out of it was a very bad idea.

We don't even know what the other options were but the killing was put in place because it was the dumbest most extreme move to make the others look better. Therefore without knowing those choices you can't dismiss them off hand and let's be frank you are basically betting that Trump made a good decision. I mean are you sure you want to take that bet?

Of course the reaction is our fault because of every action causes a reaction no matter how you slice it Iran's current status is our fault. Whether you want to go back to pulling out of the nuclear deal or our reaction to the Iranian people choosing a leader we didn't like then meddling giving the opening for extremists to take control. It's important not to rewrite history here we fucked up it was our government who pissed them off initially and our action with Iraq that has allowed their power to grow and flourish.