We attacked Iran because the target was simply too tempting to pass up, military sources tell me.
No consideration was given to the what, the so what or the then what, I’m also told. The “high-value targets” were just too valuable: the Ayatollah, the Chief of staff of the Army, the Minister of Defense—at least 40 senior officials in total were killed. Trump 'approved' what was all but impossible not to approve. The president is captive to an intelligence machine built over decades that now produces kill packages so clean and seductive that it practically runs itself.
As the Pentagon bluntly put it, “a large-scale U.S. strike cut off the head of the snake,” summarizing its view of a crisp decapitation operation.
Trump gets away with all of this by pretending we’re not really at war—a falsehood with which Congress is happy to play along. Asked if the U.S. is at war with Iran, Sen. Lindsey Graham told Meet the Press: “I don’t know if this is technically a war.” Absurd as that sounds, Democratic leaders are adopting the same framing. Sen. Chuck Schumer says the strikes are “risking wider conflict” as if this isn’t already that; Rep. Hakeem Jeffries says the operation has “brought us to the brink of a possible war,” as if this isn’t already war.
If killing a 36-year-long head of state and his deputies isn’t war, what is?
The United States is at war with Iran, pure and simple. We have been for decades. We supported Iraq in its war against Iran. We’ve conducted special operations inside Iran. We’ve shot at Iranian coastal installations and sunk Iranian ships. We’ve undertaken constant covert operations in the shadows, from actual sabotage to planting cyber viruses. We shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, attacked targets on land, and conducted thousands of strikes against Iranian proxies in multiple countries from Yemen to Lebanon. We’ve labeled the country part of the Axis of Evil. We killed Quds Force head Qasem Soleimani in an aerial assassination and bombed Iranian nuclear-related sites. We’ve thwarted Iranian attacks on Israel and others, maintained a tripwire ground force in Kuwait, and hardened installations in the region.
From Jimmy Carter to Donald Trump, through Republican and Democratic administrations, the United States has frozen countless billions in Iranian assets; sanctioned Iranian companies; cut off Iran from the world banking system; banned Iranian oil imports and exports; and penalized non-U.S. companies investing in the country. We have designated the nation, Iranian organizations, and Iranian individuals state sponsors of terrorism and foreign terrorist organizations.
...
We build this military and intelligence machine, we pay for it, we watch it out there constantly training, deploying, exercising, attacking this and that in a half dozen countries so when something like this unfolds, we shouldn’t be surprised. That’s what it’s for.
I don't know that everyone did praise him. That strike was also much different than this which is more akin to the Iraq war IMO. If anything the country spending, what, 20 years at war in the...
I don't know that everyone did praise him. That strike was also much different than this which is more akin to the Iraq war IMO. If anything the country spending, what, 20 years at war in the Middle East is why I'm so opposed to this.
My dad tells me he watched the US invade Kuwait while I was being born, from my perspective its been going on for literally my whole entire life. Such crazyness
My dad tells me he watched the US invade Kuwait while I was being born, from my perspective its been going on for literally my whole entire life. Such crazyness
Assuming this was just a typo, but the US defended kuwait from an Iraqi invasion as part of a 42-country coalition under the auspices of the UN security council. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
My dad tells me he watched the US invade Kuwait
Assuming this was just a typo, but the US defended kuwait from an Iraqi invasion as part of a 42-country coalition under the auspices of the UN security council.
Osama wasn't the head of state and the highest religious authority of a country of 90+ million. A better comparison would be Trump killing Qasem Soleimani in his first term after using Iraq...
Osama wasn't the head of state and the highest religious authority of a country of 90+ million.
A better comparison would be Trump killing Qasem Soleimani in his first term after using Iraq without their knowledge to lure him out. That seems to have fizzled out after they shot down their own plane. Or maybe because they didn't actually want to escalate with the global military hegemon, or other reasons beyond me.
From the perspective of "random US citizen who watches the news maybe sometimes mostly against their will" it's pretty much the same. President killed some people's leader in the middle east. Old...
From the perspective of "random US citizen who watches the news maybe sometimes mostly against their will" it's pretty much the same.
President killed some people's leader in the middle east. Old news. Been going on for my whole entire life.
I get that, and really am not comfortable having an opinion on most geopolitics because it's so far beyond what I understand or have any influence on-- checking out is fine. I also had a friend...
I get that, and really am not comfortable having an opinion on most geopolitics because it's so far beyond what I understand or have any influence on-- checking out is fine. I also had a friend growing up whose extended family were tortured under Pinochet, and am aware of Operation Condor and a lot of the rest of our shady history.
But not all events are the same. Killing a terrorist in response to the largest attack on U.S. soil isn't openly assassinating dozens of heads of state. Killing politicians you don't like is increasingly on the table and we already had that happen up in MN.
The world would look very different if PNAC/neocons hadn't invaded Iraq. Millions are dead, even if you only see them on the news. Iran would look wildly different without our coups, or maybe just the U.S.-backed pressure of UAE/Israel and withdrawal from the nuclear deal.
There are many differences. Al-Qaeda was a decentralized network of cells. Iran is a highly centralized authoritarian state. Political and technical experience isn't very important for Al-Qaeda's...
There are many differences.
Al-Qaeda was a decentralized network of cells. Iran is a highly centralized authoritarian state.
Political and technical experience isn't very important for Al-Qaeda's decentralized operations. Bombings, hijackings, and other guerrilla attacks are easy for small cells to execute and require little/no state capacity.
Running the Iranian regime requires a lot of political and technical experience and coordination, so the decimated leadership greatly weakens the regime's ability to coordinate a response to both internal and external threats. Furthermore, the regime's high degree of centralization (they had a literal lifelong supreme leader) makes it quite brittle.
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, isn't brittle: it's a franchise, and while cells are politically/ideologically, they are functionally independent of each other. That extreme flexibility makes it difficult to destroy the entire organization, because it's actually composed of many independent organizations.
Things are definitely going to change. Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse.
Other people on this thread have replied how this is different. Here is a whole article about that from The Atlantic today: Trump Opens the Pandora’s Box of Assassination Killing anyone without a...
Other people on this thread have replied how this is different. Here is a whole article about that from The Atlantic today: Trump Opens the Pandora’s Box of Assassination Killing anyone without a trial, let alone a foreign leader, involves a moral choice.
If tasked with a similar assignment in 2026, the intelligence community and the military would likely have the tools to target any political leader on the face of the planet. This is an enormously consequential shift in the foreign-policy tools available to a president. Killing anyone, let alone a dangerous foreign leader, without a trial involves a moral choice. Killing a foreign leader involves a strategic calculation with questionable odds. A regime isn’t a chicken; decapitating it doesn’t necessarily bring about its death after a short dance. Indeed, in the modern age, no police state has died by assassination alone.
As killing foreign leaders gets easier for us, harming our leaders also presumably gets easier for others. The international taboo against foreign political assassination has arguably had a stabilizing effect, despite those states—Russia, for example—that have flouted it. To put a fine point on it, however tempting it may be to eliminate troublesome foreign leaders, no policy maker in a democracy wants to spark acts of retaliation that cost the lives of our own leaders in turn.
I disagree with the notion that Trump opened Pandora's box. That box has been opened forever since the dawn of man, and it's not unprecedented in modernity either. Russia has made ~8 attempts to...
I disagree with the notion that Trump opened Pandora's box. That box has been opened forever since the dawn of man, and it's not unprecedented in modernity either. Russia has made ~8 attempts to assassinate Ukraine's President Zelensky over the past several years. And it's not for lack of trying: they've tried waves of commandos, mercenaries, recruiting insiders to become assassins, a Polish sleeper agent, and drones in Ireland. Russia wishes it were as capable as the US.
You're leaving out an important detail that was specifically mentioned in the quoted text. This is (allegedly) supposed to be a "rules based international order" which is under the leadership of...
You're leaving out an important detail that was specifically mentioned in the quoted text. This is (allegedly) supposed to be a "rules based international order" which is under the leadership of the US and its western democratic allies. It's not about whether or not assassinations are possible, or if they have been done before. It's about how it effects international law and the agreed-upon rules. Russia and its predecessor were punished for their actions in Ukraine and Afghanistan. The US most likely will not face repercussions, which undermines what remaining credibility the current international system has.
99 Red Balloons Zombie This is what happens when everyone just follows orders. We should go back to the days when you had to look your enemies in the eye and slaughter them by hand.
99 Decision Street
Ninety-nine ministers meet
To worry, worry, super-scurry
Call the troops out in a hurry
This is what we've waited for
This is it, boys, this is war
The president is on the line
As ninety-nine red balloons go by
But you see, it's not me, it's not my family
In your head, in your head they are fighting
With their tanks and their bombs
And their bombs and their guns
In your head, in your head, they are crying
This is what happens when everyone just follows orders.
We should go back to the days when you had to look your enemies in the eye and slaughter them by hand.
I guess? Not to undermine your anti-war standpoint, but slaughter by hand was done frequently and was often cruel to an absurd degree. Sacking cities was the default, not the exception.
I guess? Not to undermine your anti-war standpoint, but slaughter by hand was done frequently and was often cruel to an absurd degree. Sacking cities was the default, not the exception.
Yes. I consider it less cruel than vaporizing entire cities without the slightest chance of fighting back. Let them not hide their vile nature behind fake smiles and metal soldiers. Slaughter by...
Yes. I consider it less cruel than vaporizing entire cities without the slightest chance of fighting back.
Let them not hide their vile nature behind fake smiles and metal soldiers.
Slaughter by hand requires much higher casualties by the aggressors. Maybe we'd be less war hungry if we had to enact the draft and most people wouled be required to go stab some brown people who would be able to stab back.
Heck, I'm almost in favor of making everyone about to go march to war to present their mother's head to the general first.
...
When Obama did it everyone praised him. He killed Osama Bin Laden and literally nothing was different after that.
I don't know that everyone did praise him. That strike was also much different than this which is more akin to the Iraq war IMO. If anything the country spending, what, 20 years at war in the Middle East is why I'm so opposed to this.
My dad tells me he watched the US invade Kuwait while I was being born, from my perspective its been going on for literally my whole entire life. Such crazyness
Assuming this was just a typo, but the US defended kuwait from an Iraqi invasion as part of a 42-country coalition under the auspices of the UN security council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
I assumed it was a misinterpretation of American troops entering Kuwait. I wasn't even counting Desert Storm in my 20 years estimate. Ugh.
I believe the actual quote was something along the lines of he watched US troops arrive in Kuwait while I was being born
Osama wasn't the head of state and the highest religious authority of a country of 90+ million.
A better comparison would be Trump killing Qasem Soleimani in his first term after using Iraq without their knowledge to lure him out. That seems to have fizzled out after they shot down their own plane. Or maybe because they didn't actually want to escalate with the global military hegemon, or other reasons beyond me.
From the perspective of "random US citizen who watches the news maybe sometimes mostly against their will" it's pretty much the same.
President killed some people's leader in the middle east. Old news. Been going on for my whole entire life.
I get that, and really am not comfortable having an opinion on most geopolitics because it's so far beyond what I understand or have any influence on-- checking out is fine. I also had a friend growing up whose extended family were tortured under Pinochet, and am aware of Operation Condor and a lot of the rest of our shady history.
But not all events are the same. Killing a terrorist in response to the largest attack on U.S. soil isn't openly assassinating dozens of heads of state. Killing politicians you don't like is increasingly on the table and we already had that happen up in MN.
The world would look very different if PNAC/neocons hadn't invaded Iraq. Millions are dead, even if you only see them on the news. Iran would look wildly different without our coups, or maybe just the U.S.-backed pressure of UAE/Israel and withdrawal from the nuclear deal.
There are many differences.
Al-Qaeda was a decentralized network of cells. Iran is a highly centralized authoritarian state.
Political and technical experience isn't very important for Al-Qaeda's decentralized operations. Bombings, hijackings, and other guerrilla attacks are easy for small cells to execute and require little/no state capacity.
Running the Iranian regime requires a lot of political and technical experience and coordination, so the decimated leadership greatly weakens the regime's ability to coordinate a response to both internal and external threats. Furthermore, the regime's high degree of centralization (they had a literal lifelong supreme leader) makes it quite brittle.
Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, isn't brittle: it's a franchise, and while cells are politically/ideologically, they are functionally independent of each other. That extreme flexibility makes it difficult to destroy the entire organization, because it's actually composed of many independent organizations.
Things are definitely going to change. Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse.
Other people on this thread have replied how this is different. Here is a whole article about that from The Atlantic today:
Trump Opens the Pandora’s Box of Assassination
Killing anyone without a trial, let alone a foreign leader, involves a moral choice.
I disagree with the notion that Trump opened Pandora's box. That box has been opened forever since the dawn of man, and it's not unprecedented in modernity either. Russia has made ~8 attempts to assassinate Ukraine's President Zelensky over the past several years. And it's not for lack of trying: they've tried waves of commandos, mercenaries, recruiting insiders to become assassins, a Polish sleeper agent, and drones in Ireland. Russia wishes it were as capable as the US.
Russia's predecessor, the Soviet Union, deployed its special forces to assassinate the leader of the Soviet satellite state established in Afghanistan in 1979.
So, leader assassination has long been on the menu.
You're leaving out an important detail that was specifically mentioned in the quoted text. This is (allegedly) supposed to be a "rules based international order" which is under the leadership of the US and its western democratic allies. It's not about whether or not assassinations are possible, or if they have been done before. It's about how it effects international law and the agreed-upon rules. Russia and its predecessor were punished for their actions in Ukraine and Afghanistan. The US most likely will not face repercussions, which undermines what remaining credibility the current international system has.
99 Red Balloons
Zombie
This is what happens when everyone just follows orders.
We should go back to the days when you had to look your enemies in the eye and slaughter them by hand.
I guess? Not to undermine your anti-war standpoint, but slaughter by hand was done frequently and was often cruel to an absurd degree. Sacking cities was the default, not the exception.
Yes. I consider it less cruel than vaporizing entire cities without the slightest chance of fighting back.
Let them not hide their vile nature behind fake smiles and metal soldiers.
Slaughter by hand requires much higher casualties by the aggressors. Maybe we'd be less war hungry if we had to enact the draft and most people wouled be required to go stab some brown people who would be able to stab back.
Heck, I'm almost in favor of making everyone about to go march to war to present their mother's head to the general first.