Iran’s Carefully Measured Attack in Iraq

by Jack

Its too early to say with any degree of certainty that the tit for tat game is over, but there is reason to think it is.  Iran had to do something or look weak and fearful, especially since they took their rhetoric campaign to a new level.  So they choose Ain Al Asad and Erbil at their targets.

What does this attack tell us, if anything?  For starters look at the time of attack, the early morning hours when the least number of people would be roaming around the two bases. So we have no American military deaths.   Military bases have the best air raid warning systems and Iran knows that, but they still chose to hit these two military targets located in sparsely populated areas.    The rhetoric in Iran has also dropped off significantly.

I would suspect the leadership in Iran was looking for a way to save face, yet not prompt a retaliatory strike that they could not handle.    Given their faltering economy they dared not provoke the US to the point of a serious response.  They oil fields are prime targets and we have the ability to inflict an economic catastrophe, they sure didn’t want to risk that.  So, it appears Iran did the worst they could, which really wasn’t much.    It’s looking like Trump might have won this round.





This entry was posted in Military, Politics and Government, World. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Iran’s Carefully Measured Attack in Iraq

  1. J. Soden says:

    The Iranian blowhard leaders were forced to do SOMETHING to save face! Either the missle misses were planned in advance, or Iranian targeteers are the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.
    Now they’re spraining their arms patting themselves on the back for their “success” while even more sanctions are implemented against them. NO sympathy here!

  2. Chris says:

    I deeply hope you’re right.

  3. J. Soden says:

    Pretty easy to tell who America’s REAL enemies are . . . . . .

  4. Chris says:

    The president yesterday: “Three months ago, after destroying 100 percent of ISIS and its territorial caliphate, we killed the savage leader of ISIS, al-Baghdadi, who was responsible for so much death, including the mass beheadings of Christians, Muslims, and all who stood in his way. He was a monster. Al-Baghdadi was trying again to rebuild the ISIS caliphate, and failed.

    Tens of thousands of ISIS fighters have been killed or captured during my administration. ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The destruction of ISIS is good for Iran, and we should work together on this and other priorities.”

    So if I have this right, first we destroyed 100% of ISIS, then we took out the leader of ISIS (whom I guess is not part of that 100%?), and now Trump wants…Iran’s help…to defeat ISIS…

    Definitely cool to have a guy in charge of this situation with no understanding of basic cause and effect, or chronology, or facts, or what words mean. I’m sure this will lead to no negative outcomes.

  5. Peggy says:

    Must hear Eric Holder explain the legal justification for killing terrorist overseas including Americans. Beginning at 25:50.

    Attorney General Eric Holder on Targeted Killings of Americans Overseas:

  6. Harold says:

    Conservative Trump supporters are not the only ones who approve of President Trumps actions. Many current and former Iranian citizens are grateful that President Trump approved last week’s airstrike that killed terrorist Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

    However, shamefully politically bias Democrats in Congress loudly criticize the defensive action, which targeted a man Reuters called “the second-most powerful figure in Iran.”

    Already known to be directly responsible for the deaths of 600+ American soldiers, intelligence sources say Soleimani was an imminent threat to even more U.S. service members, diplomats and other interests in several countries.

    And a strong possibility may soon be revealed that Trumps actions prevented even more deaths ordered by Soleimani.

    But as proclaimed by some Trump-hating politicians and the bias fake-news media, the late general could be described as a “hero,” “inspirational,” a “military genius,” a “poet” and in other glowing terms. Really, it is shame what crap bias politics can spawn.

    The New Yorker even went so far as to call Soleimani “a flamboyant former construction worker and bodybuilder with snowy white hair, a dapper beard, and arching salt-and-pepper eyebrows.”

    Seriously?! Such descriptions from an American based Journalist using glowing terms to describe this terrorist who helped kill hundreds of American soldiers during the Iraq War and, by some estimates 1,500 people of his own countrymen

    Recently an Iran-born American who has spent the past 12 years as a human-rights activist working on Iran policy said, President Trump made the right call.

    Too bad the other planned strike didn’t cut off another head of this terrorist hydra regime.

    • Chris says:

      But as proclaimed by some Trump-hating politicians and the bias fake-news media, the late general could be described as a “hero,” “inspirational,” a “military genius,” a “poet” and in other glowing terms. Really, it is shame what crap bias politics can spawn.

      Please name the American politicians and journalists who have used these terms.

      <i<The New Yorker even went so far as to call Soleimani “a flamboyant former construction worker and bodybuilder with snowy white hair, a dapper beard, and arching salt-and-pepper eyebrows.”

      Seriously?! Such descriptions from an American based Journalist using glowing terms

      Nothing in that description is “glowing.”

      The opposition to killing Soleimani did not just come from the left and has nothing to do with any love for Soleimani. It had everything to do with whether such an action was wise or would have a negative impact and lead to war. The president himself said he had no “exit strategy” in mind if it came to that. The criticism also involved Trump refusing to notify Congress before this action was taken, and even after he refused to give the national security committee evidence that Soleimani was an imminent threat according to even conservative Republican members of Congress who otherwise support Trump.

      I’m old enough to remember Republicans accusing everyone skeptical about the Iraq War of supporting Saddam and loving terrorists. Looks like even after most in your party have accepted that the left was right about the Iraq War, you’re still retreating to the same dishonest playbook to stifle honest criticism of unilateral military action by a president. That’s not patriotism, Harold, it’s just warmed over authoritarianism.

      • J. Soden says:

        Guess I’ll have to repeat myself – Pretty easy to tell who America’s REAL enemies are . . . . . .

        Well said, Harold!

      • Peggy says:

        “Please name the American politicians and journalists who have used these terms.”

        Better than naming them you can watch and hear them.

        • Chris says:

          Thanks for the video.

          It sounds like when they’ve used the word “hero” these journalists were describing how he is seen by many in Iran, not their own view.

          I do think it seems like they are being too credulous of the idea that he was widely respected in Iran. I hope that in other points in those segments those journalists pointed out that Iranians do not truly have free speech and a lot of their grief could be a result of pressure from their authoritarian government. Without further context that video doesn’t really tell us if those journalists are giving both sides. Either way, I do find some of these statements troubling. Others, such as calling him an “evil genius” or Sanders’ comments about whether killing him might cause more chaos don’t really show him any sympathy at all. So while I can agree that some of the coverage has been too favorable of the idea that Soleimani is well-respected in Iran, I also think that video is misleading overall.

  7. Chris says:

    The president now admits he sells soldiers to the highest bidder:

    “We have a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia—I said, listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited $1B in the bank.”

    You want to show you respect the troops? Support impeachment or vote this POW-hating, Gold-Star-family mocking, troop-selling draft dodger out of office.

  8. RHT447 says:

    Just a reminder–

    “Clinton sent Ambassador Stevens to Benghazi to secretly purchase US made Stinger Missiles (MANPADS – Man Portable Air Defense Systems) with gold. Under Clinton’s direction, the State Dept had supplied the Stingers to Ansar al Sharia in Libya without Congressional approval.

    ” So, to bring you up to speed, skinny, wimpy, homosexual Chris Stevens is running around Benghazi with gold in the back of his Range Rover and no effective bodyguard, trusting in the good will of jihadis. What could possibly go wrong?”

    SECSTATE Hillary Clinton had brokered the INITIAL Libya deal through Marc Turi private arms dealer based in Arizona. It should not surprise this blog’s readership that some of the Stinger Missiles ended up in Afghanistan where they were used against our own military.

    On July 25th, 2012, a US Chinook helicopter was downed by one of them. Not destroyed only because the Taliban didn’t arm the missile’s warhead. The helicopter didn’t explode, but it had to land and an EOD team recovered the missile’s serial number which led back to a cache of Stinger Missiles kept in Qatar by the CIA, which Clinton’s State Department drew from. So the breadcrumbs lead back to one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington DC, intent on being the next US President.

    Are any of you surprised?”

    From here–

    • Peggy says:

      My research identified Turi as a Little Rock, AK friend of the Clintons and Sidney Blumenthal. When congress didn’t approve the request for war and funding for Libya Blumenthal arranged for the military weapons be shipped to Qatar and backdoored into Libya. There was no senate approved embassy in Benghazi so Hillary set up the “Mission” and Annex. Marines protect embassies not missions, which is why contractors were hired and why Hillary refused to approve Steven’s 400 request for more security. The Annex was one mile away from the Mission and where the weapons were being stored after buying them back and before being shipped to Syria through Turkey. (Remember Steven’s met with the Turkey agent just before the attack that night?) Stand down orders given to rescue jets was necessary because of all the stored weapons at the Annex. Hillary and Obama couldn’t risk all of that ammo blowing up exposing their very profitable money making arms deal. They wouldn’t be able to lie their way out of a massive explosion and the death of about 40 people huddled at the Annex that night as they would with just four deaths at the Mission caused by a video.

  9. Peggy says:

    More winning!!

    BREAKING: The Trump Effect: Britain, France, Germany Suddenly Harden Toward Iran After Killing Of Soleimani:

    “Surprise, surprise: Three countries that are signatories to the infamous iran nuclear deal have suddenly hardened their positions vis-à-vis Iran after the Trump administration’s airstrike killing Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

    On Tuesday, Britain, France and Germany triggered the nuclear deal’s dispute mechanism, which means Iran has 30 days to stop violating the nuclear deal before a “snapback” of U.N. and EU sanctions on Iran could be implemented, as the Associated Press reports.

    As Britain’s Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab informed Parliament, although Russia and China objected to the move by Britain, France and Germany, every time Iran violates the deal, the “breakout time” Iran needs to create a nuclear bomb is diminished. He warned, “Each of these actions were individually serious. Together, they now raise acute concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.