Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Petraeus Says Trump May Have Helped ‘Reestablish Deterrence’ by Killing Suleimani

  1. #1
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    40,137

    Petraeus Says Trump May Have Helped ‘Reestablish Deterrence’ by Killing Suleimani

    Spot on.....

    Petraeus Says Trump May Have Helped ‘Reestablish Deterrence’ by Killing Suleimani

    The former U.S. commander and CIA director says Iran’s “very fragile” situation may limit its response.

    As a former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and a former CIA director, retired Gen. David Petraeus is keenly familiar with Qassem Suleimani, the powerful chief of Iran’s Quds Force, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad Friday morning.

    After months of a muted U.S. response to Tehran’s repeated lashing out—the downing of a U.S. military drone, a devastating attack on Saudi oil infrastructure, and more—Suleimani’s killing was designed to send a pointed message to the regime that the United States will not tolerate continued provocation, he said.

    Foreign Policy: What impact will the killing of Gen. Suleimani have on regional tensions?

    David Petraeus: It is impossible to overstate the importance of this particular action. It is more significant than the killing of Osama bin Laden or even the death of [Islamic State leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi. Suleimani was the architect and operational commander of the Iranian effort to solidify control of the so-called Shia crescent, stretching from Iran to Iraq through Syria into southern Lebanon. He is responsible for providing explosives, projectiles, and arms and other munitions that killed well over 600 American soldiers and many more of our coalition and Iraqi partners just in Iraq, as well as in many other countries such as Syria. So his death is of enormous significance.

    The question of course is how does Iran respond in terms of direct action by its military and Revolutionary Guard Corps forces? And how does it direct its proxies—the Iranian-supported Shia militia in Iraq and Syria and southern Lebanon, and throughout the world?

    FP: Two previous administrations have reportedly considered this course of action and dismissed it. Why did Trump act now?

    DP: The reasoning seems to be to show in the most significant way possible that the U.S. is just not going to allow the continued violence—the rocketing of our bases, the killing of an American contractor, the attacks on shipping, on unarmed drones—without a very significant response.

    Many people had rightly questioned whether American deterrence had eroded somewhat because of the relatively insignificant responses to the earlier actions. This clearly was of vastly greater importance. Of course it also, per the Defense Department statement, was a defensive action given the reported planning and contingencies that Suleimani was going to Iraq to discuss and presumably approve.

    This was in response to the killing of an American contractor, the wounding of American forces, and just a sense of how this could go downhill from here if the Iranians don’t realize that this cannot continue.

    FP: Do you think this response was proportionate?

    DP: It was a defensive response and this is, again, of enormous consequence and significance. But now the question is: How does Iran respond with its own forces and its proxies, and then what does that lead the U.S. to do?

    Iran is in a very precarious economic situation, it is very fragile domestically—they’ve killed many, many hundreds if not thousands of Iranian citizens who were demonstrating on the streets of Iran in response to the dismal economic situation and the mismanagement and corruption. I just don’t see the Iranians as anywhere near as supportive of the regime at this point as they were decades ago during the Iran-Iraq War. Clearly the supreme leader has to consider that as Iran considers the potential responses to what the U.S. has done.

    It will be interesting now to see if there is a U.S. diplomatic initiative to reach out to Iran and to say, “Okay, the next move could be strikes against your oil infrastructure and your forces in your country—where does that end?”

    FP: Will Iran consider this an act of war?

    DP: I don’t know what that means, to be truthful. They clearly recognize how very significant it was. But as to the definition—is a cyberattack an act of war? No one can ever answer that. We haven’t declared war, but we have taken a very, very significant action.

    FP: How prepared is the U.S. to protect its forces in the region?

    DP: We’ve taken numerous actions to augment our air defenses in the region, our offensive capabilities in the region, in terms of general purpose and special operations forces and air assets. The Pentagon has considered the implications the potential consequences and has done a great deal to mitigate the risks—although you can’t fully mitigate the potential risks.

    FP: Do you think the decision to conduct this attack on Iraqi soil was overly provocative?

    DP: Again what was the alternative? Do it in Iran? Think of the implications of that. This is the most formidable adversary that we have faced for decades. He is a combination of CIA director, JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] commander, and special presidential envoy for the region. This is a very significant effort to reestablish deterrence, which obviously had not been shored up by the relatively insignificant responses up until now.

    FP: What is the likelihood that there will be an all-out war?

    DP: Obviously all sides will suffer if this becomes a wider war, but Iran has to be very worried that—in the state of its economy, the significant popular unrest and demonstrations against the regime—that this is a real threat to the regime in a way that we have not seen prior to this.

    FP: Given the maximum pressure campaign that has crippled its economy, the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, and now this assassination, what incentive does Iran have to negotiate now?

    DP: The incentive would be to get out from under the sanctions, which are crippling. Could we get back to the Iran nuclear deal plus some additional actions that could address the shortcomings of the agreement?

    This is a very significant escalation, and they don’t know where this goes any more than anyone else does. Yes, they can respond and they can retaliate, and that can lead to further retaliation—and that it is clear now that the administration is willing to take very substantial action. This is a pretty clarifying moment in that regard.

    FP: What will Iran do to retaliate?

    DP: Right now they are probably doing what anyone does in this situation: considering the menu of options. There could be actions in the gulf, in the Strait of Hormuz by proxies in the regional countries, and in other continents where the Quds Force have activities. There’s a very considerable number of potential responses by Iran, and then there’s any number of potential U.S. responses to those actions

    Given the state of their economy, I think they have to be very leery, very concerned that that could actually result in the first real challenge to the regime certainly since the Iran-Iraq War.

    FP: Will the Iraqi government kick the U.S. military out of Iraq?

    DP: The prime minister has said that he would put forward legislation to do that, although I don’t think that the majority of Iraqi leaders want to see that given that ISIS is still a significant threat. They are keenly aware that it was not the Iranian supported militias that defeated the Islamic State, it was U.S.-enabled Iraqi armed forces and special forces that really fought the decisive battles.


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  2. #2
    This is all Trump escalations.

    Pulling out of the JCPOA.
    Putting on more sanctions.

    And now initiating the attacks on targets in Iraq that became the protests against the US at the Baghdad embassy.
    At first, it seemed everything was going according to plan. Trump rejected the option to kill Soleimani to respond to a wave of recent Iranian-sponsored violence in Iraq . Instead, he authorized airstrikes against an Iranian-supported militia group, Kataib Hezbollah. The strikes ended up hitting three locations in Iraq and two in Syria.


    Then things changed when protesters gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday. Iranians saw the U.S. response as disproportionate but Trump became increasingly angry at the images he saw on television as protesters stormed the embassy. Suddenly, Trump was worried that failing to respond to the protests would look weak. By Thursday, Trump had decided to go forward with the killing of Soleimani and “top Pentagon officials were stunned,” reports the Times. CNN also reports that “some officials emerged surprised” when the president decided to target Soleimani as many expected he would go for a less risky option. There was immediate concern about what kind of retaliation that could spark from Iran, but it is unclear whether top military officials pushed back against Trump’s decision.

    Although top U.S. national security officials continue to insist that the killing of Soleimani was in response to an imminent threat against Americas, there continues to be skepticism about that claim as the administration has failed to provide convincing evidence to make its case. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley also made clear that the attacks could still happen, meaning that killing Soleimani did not get rid of the supposed imminent threat. Several Democratic lawmakers have expressed skepticism at the president’s claims. “My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of agencies in the United States government and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack,” Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico said.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...soleimani.html

    Trump is really fucking up.
    Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool! I will call you later

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    This is all Trump escalations.

    Pulling out of the JCPOA.
    Putting on more sanctions.

    And now initiating the attacks on targets in Iraq that became the protests against the US at the Baghdad embassy.


    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...soleimani.html

    Trump is really fucking up.
    Great job, its time he woke up, this should've happened when they bombed the saudis.

  4. #4
    Never Been Justly Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hooterville
    Posts
    40,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaibetter View Post
    Great job, its time he woke up, this should've happened when they bombed the saudis.
    Actually I think responding economically was responsible in that case, attacking ships, shooting down a drone. When they escalated to attacking Americans it was time to spill some blood.

    https://www.crazyshit.com/cnt/pics/7...-bye-dick-head


    At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy, is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.

  5. #5
    It is funny to watch the cliusterfuck of all the people here convincing each other that this is a big win for USA.
    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent anybody else.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by danmand View Post
    It is funny to watch the cliusterfuck of all the people here convincing each other that this is a big win for USA.
    Just ask them what end game they think Trump is playing for.
    Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool! I will call you later

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Frankfooter View Post
    Just ask them what end game they think Trump is playing for.
    We know he is trying to get reelected.
    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent anybody else.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by danmand View Post
    We know he is trying to get reelected.
    Maybe they really did want the US to leave Iraq and hand it over directly to the Iranians.
    Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool! I will call you later

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by danmand View Post
    We know he is trying to get reelected.
    Of course Trump doesn't need a dead Iranian terrorist for that. With the economy firing on all cylinders and Democrats pushing socialist morons(except one regular moron), his reelection is not exactly in doubt. A ground war in Iran will bury his chances, however.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    Of course Trump doesn't need a dead Iranian terrorist for that. With the economy firing on all cylinders and Democrats pushing socialist morons(except one regular moron), his reelection is not exactly in doubt. A ground war in Iran will bury his chances, however.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9269791.html

    I thought your ape in chief had a plan to pull out of the Middle East?
    Isolationist usa is the best kind, right?
    What happened?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by apoptygma View Post
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9269791.html

    I thought your ape in chief had a plan to pull out of the Middle East?
    Isolationist usa is the best kind, right?
    What happened?
    You think that Trump or his supporters are isolationists? Funny.
    "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Hillary Clinton

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by jcpro View Post
    You think that Trump or his supporters are isolationists? Funny.
    You live in a cave.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •