The left in Congress and the media are pleading “doomsday”, WWIII!, and “Trump is out of control with no plan” in response to his order to remove Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani.
These Trump-haters are so full of vitriol against Trump that they have blinded themselves to the facts:
Who was Soleimani?
From the BBC: “Under his leadership, Iran had bolstered Hezbollah in Lebanon and other pro-Iranian militant groups, expanded Iran's military presence in Iraq and Syria and orchestrated Syria's offensive against rebel groups in the country's long civil war.”
In essence, Soleimani was in charge of terrorism in the Middle East on behalf of Iranian and other jihad-inspired Muslims. HERE is a link to Soleimani’s “accomplishments”, aka “top ten atrocities” on behalf of the “religion of peace.”
Has the previous United States policy of appeasement worked?
No. Our policies under Obama, the not well disguised Muslim, emboldened Iran and like minded infidel-hating nations and bought them time and space to expand their areas of influence and control. The $1.7 billion Obama sent to Iran in cash was most likely used to fund Iran’s proxy militias to undermine US influence and to further destabilize the Middle East through terror and intimidation. THAT was appeasement on steroids.
What will Iran do in response? Here are the possibilities, from most to least likely:
1. Continue and likely up their game of asymmetrical warfare against Western and more moderate Islamic interests in the region. These tactics include use of proxy militias and nations in executing terror attacks to intimidate and control, harassment of shipping in narrow regional international shipping channels, and carrying out cyber-attacks against the computerized systems (banking, infrastructure) of first world nations. In other words, at least in the short term, they will continue what they have been doing, except perhaps a bit more clandestinely, not as readily observably.
2. Through proxies, fire additional missiles at Israel.
3. Directly attack US interests in the region or in the US.
What will the US do going forward?
The US has ended Obama’s regime of appeasement. The rules of engagement have changed – hallelujah!
Presidential bluster and threats on our behalf against Iran are essential. Iran cannot mistakenly believe we will do nothing any longer. Such talk from Trump unhinges the Democrats, but must be said to minimize stupid actions by Iran.
It is now open season on Iranian military leaders. The ROE shackles are off. Iranian militia leaders within Iraq have withdrawn into Iran, supposedly to help ready missile batteries, but more likely to preserve their lives.
We have and will increase our troop strength in the short term in the Middle East to protect our assets. How long that will be necessary is unknown. We have and will increase our readiness at home knowing there are Iranian terror cells that are likely to be activated here.
If there is known to by ANY link between terror carried out in this nation and Iranian influence, the rules of engagement with Iran change further, and significant bombing of Iranian assets becomes more likely.
What about our presence in Iraq?
In spite of the resolution of the Iraqi Parliament, heavily influenced by Iranian interests, by the way, to eject US forces from Iraq, the US can choose to remain, at least for a short while. While it takes a decision of the Iraqi Executive, currently a “caretaker” government, to change that policy, we could leave sooner than later. HERE is a not fully verified claim that we may leave sooner than later. It may be a test, and only a test, of the will of Iraqi leaders. HERE is a later report indicating the above letter was a draft, with no immediate withdrawal pending. This may be a “misdirect” to confuse everyone, especially Iran –and especially to ferret out where the US presence stands in the minds of Iraqi leadership.
On the other hand, taking out Soleimani despite the explicit rejection to do so by the Iraqi government might have been Trump playing 5-D chess, as someone described, with the full conscious intent being to elicit Iraqi anger as cover for total US withdrawal. If that is the case, not too many of us are terribly sad.
Despite all this speculation, there is considerable support among Iraqis, notably the Kurds and Sunnis, for the US to remain. Most Sunni lawmakers and all Kurdish members of parliament sat out the vote – likely out of fear if they overtly voting “no” to the US expulsion vote.
And what about Democrat anti-Americanism?
The words and actions of Democrats in the House, such as hand cuffing the President via limiting the War Powers Act, make them appear to be pro-Iranian and anti-American among most voters. These actions will motivate the electorate to support Trump as much as the actions of the Virginia Governor sell guns.
A word about “fear”: Pelosi and her crowd are consumed by fear. We have indeed become a nation of fearful snowflakes. A related term is “soft.” We dare not allow any encroachment into our comfort zones which are many and all consuming. Fear is the number one reason we have pandered to rogue nations and terror groups. We are fearful of their threats almost to the point of fearing our own shadows. Fear is what drives the Democrat party and even most of our Christian churches to cave to every craven thought and act. We don’t want to offend anyone for any reason. We fear the potential consequences, even though the potential rewards in both victories and faithfulness are greater than any threat of “offending.”
No comments:
Post a Comment