As everyone knows, Iran is reeling from the economic sanctions reimposed by the Trump Administration. Iranian oil sales abroad have plummeted in one year by 90%, from 2.46 mbd. to .24 mbd. Iran itself predicts that its oil revenues will fall again, by another 70% in the next Iranian fiscal year. Iran’s GDP continues to contract, by 4.8% in 2018 and again by 9.5% in 2019; in 2020, it is again expected to fall by another 12-15%. The unemployment rate, meanwhile, rose from 14.5% in 2018 to 16.8% in 2019, and is estimated in 2020 to rise to 20%. The rial has sunk from an exchange rate of 40,000 to one USD to 120,000 to one USD.
Until the very end of December, the Administration looked as though it was content to let economic sanctions wreak havoc in Iran. It did not respond militarily when Saudi oil installations were hit by Iran. The lack of any response to that attack disturbed Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. They needn’t have worried. When a single American contractor was killed in Iraq, the Americans responded on December 29 with attacks on the Iranian-allied Shi’a militia in Iraq and Syria – the Kataeb Hezbollah, who were responsible, killing 25 and wounding more than 50. Then, after Iraqi Shi’a in response attacked the American Embassy, the Americans prepared to reinforce the compound with hundreds of Marines, warning Iran that it would hold it responsible for any further attacks. On January 3, the Americans killed the leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), Qassem Soleimani, in a spectacular strike at Baghdad’s airport, just as Soleimani had descended from a plane. Secretary of State Pompeo announced that Soleimani had been preparing ”imminent attacks” on Americans. President Trump tweeted that Soleimani should have been “taken out five years ago.” The killing of Soleimani signaled to everyone that the American policy had definitely changed; Iranian attacks, or even plans for such attacks on America and its allies, would be met with devastating force. Qassem Soleimani was not just a general; he was Iran’s most important military figure and the world’s foremost terrorist. American intelligence was spectacular; its information allowed the American drone to identify and take him out at the airport.
Ayatollah Khamenei has now promised a “harsh revenge.” But what can Iran do other than issue its usual blood-curdling threats? If it attacks any Americans — diplomats, contractors, military – or if it plans such an attack, it can now expect an immediate forceful response, many times more powerful than anything the Iranians can muster. President Rouhani and Ayatollah Khamenei do not dare to test the Americans – their belligerence is purely verbal. They know that they’re not dealing with that milquetoast Carter in the White House, who was always hoping that perhaps the American hostages in the embassy, gosh darn it, would be let free (as they were, after 444 days, on the same day Reagan replaced Carter). They are dealing with Donald Trump, who now terrifies Tehran.
The Russians are furious at this display of American military resolve. They issued a statement: “The short-sighted acts of the US, the assassination of General Soleimani, lead to a sharp escalation of the military-political situation in the Middle East region and serious negative consequences for the entire international security system.” What “negative consequences” result from the killing of the world’s most powerful terrorist? Weren’t there far more “negative consequences” if he had been left alive to carry out his plots? The government of France claimed that the world has been made “less safe” because of Soleimani’s death. Was the world “less safe,” Monsieur Macron, because of the deaths of Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi? Secretary Pompeo replied on CNN: “Yeah, well, the French are just wrong about that. The world is a much safer place today. And I can assure you that Americans in the region are much safer today after the demise of Qasem Soleimani.” Anyone of common sense – that leaves out most of our media and political elites in the Western world – would have to agree.
The US strike that killed Qassem Soleimani was aimed at deterring Iranian aggression and “setting the conditions for de-escalation,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Fox News. “We don’t seek war with Iran, but we at the same time are not going to stand by and watch the Iranians escalate and continue to put American lives at risk without responding in a way that disrupts, defends, deters, and creates an opportunity to de-escalate the situation,” he added later in the interview on Friday morning.
The Americans are not looking for war, as half the world appears to believe, but they will not any longer permit Iran to get away with attacks against Americans without being held to account.
In the Middle East, our allies have had their previous fears of American inaction allayed. Prime Minister Netanyahu has praised the killing: “Trump is worthy of full appreciation for acting with determination, strongly and swiftly. We stand fully by the United States in its just battle for security, peace and self-defense.” Saudi Arabia and the UAE have as yet made no statements but must be similarly delighted at this blow to Iran’s ability to wage war. Even in Iraq there have been crowds — mainly Sunnis — celebrating the death of Soleimani, but reports claim that many Shi’a, too, have joined in, for they have been enraged at Iranian interference in Iraq’s affairs, as was shown by the attack in late November, when Shi’a protesters burned down the Iranian consulate in Najaf.
In the U.K., Jeremy Corbyn – who needs to be pulled off the political stage as soon as possible — predictably denounced the Americans: he claimed that “the US assassination” of the general “is an extremely serious and dangerous escalation of conflict in the Middle East with global significance. The UK government should urge restraint on the part of both Iran and the US, and stand up to the belligerent actions and rhetoric coming from the United States.”
Note how Corbyn describes the killing of Soleimani as “a serious and dangerous escalation of conflict.” Wasn’t Iran’s attack on Saudi oil installations a “serious and dangerous escalation of conflict”? And surely the recent killing of the American contractor was another a “serious and dangerous escalation”? Corbyn has nothing to say about the reason for Soleimani’s killing – his plotting major attacks on Americans. And he ends by denouncing “the belligerent actions and rhetoric” coming from the United States, but says nothing about Iran’s “belligerent actions” through its proxies in Yemen (Houthis), Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Iraq (Shia miiitia), its threats to commercial shipping in the Gulf of Hormuz, and its direct attack on Saudi oil installations. Nor does Corbyn mention the blood-curdling rhetoric that has been coming out of Tehran for decades, with threats to destroy Israel and, more recently, to do the same to the United States. Has Corbyn managed not to see those endless rallies where tens of thousands of Iranians vent their fury with shouts of “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” as they stomp on, or set on fire, Israeli and American flags? How’s that for “belligerent rhetoric”? Has the United States – or Israel – ever engaged in anything like that “belligerent rhetoric” against Iran?
Now that the Iranians have huffed and puffed about the “harsh revenge” they intend to take, what can they do? If they so much as touch a hair on the head of an American in the Middle East, they can expect immediate and deadly retaliation. Instead of targeting a single man (and also taking out others who met Soleimani as he came down the plane at the airport), the Americans will target Iranian bases in Iraq and Syria, Hezbollah bases in Lebanon, Houthi bases in Yemen. They could strike more directly at Iran by sinking Iranian warships in the Gulf, or bombing a few Iranian oil installations in Khuzestan, and warning Iran that should Iran try to attack the oil installations in Saudi Arabia or those of any other American ally, the rest of Iran’s oil installations would be wiped out. They could attack bases inside Iran, destroying Iranian warplanes on the ground, missile warehouses, command-and-control centers.
The Iranians can engage in asymmetrical warfare, but will they? Through the terrorist group Hezbollah, Iran could attack American and Israeli embassies and consulates throughout the world. Iran could supply the anti-American forces in Afghanistan, that is the Taliban, with weaponry to attack the American troops that remain, though Iran would then be aiding they very group, the Taliban, that years ago tried to wipe out the Shi’a Hazara, who were saved only the arrival of the Americans in the country. In the Gulf, Iran’s war ships are no match for those of the United States, but Iran has invested heavily in small swift boats, that can attack much larger American warships by swarming them; even if only a few from each swarm survive to attack an American warship, those few can inflict considerable damage.
But while this assymetrical warfare is certainly possible, Iran now fears, as it never had to before, the way Americans will react. And it is now clear that any aggression plotted or carried out by Iran is likely to lead to a warfare of another kind – that is, repeated and crushing blows by the American military against Iran and its proxies. That will only lead to more disasters for Iran. The Americans who, having upped the ante when they killed Qassem Soleimani, will surely continue to inflict ever greater damage until Iran quiets completely down. If Iran is found to have given more aid to Hezbollah, and instructed it to murder Americans abroad, American attacks on the many Hezbollah bases and missile warehouses in Lebanon could wipe out the terror group’s effective presence in that country. Any damage inflicted by Iran on our Gulf Arab allies – their oil installations, pipelines, ships — could lead to direct attacks on Iran itself. Aside from leveling Iranian military bases, warplanes, warships, missile factories and warehouses, the Americans could actively encourage, and supply with war materiel, several of the disaffected non-Persian minorities in Iran — the country is only 60% Persian — including the Arabs in Khuzestan, the Kurds in northwest Iran, the Azeris in north-central Iran, and the Sunni Baluchis in the far east of Iran, on the border with Pakistan’s Baluchistan. It would be difficult for the Iranian military to suppress all of these separatist groups at the same time, and fight as well the Americans attacking Iranian proxies and Iranian bases.
While the Internet is full of doomsday articles about the “danger to world peace” that the killing of Soleimani has supposedly caused, with so many talking heads on television anxiously expecting Iran’s “harsh revenge” – I suggest quite a different outcome. Iran may announce that it is transferring some more weapons to the Houthis in Yemen or to the Iraqi Shi’a groups with which it is allied, or to Hezbollah. After all, Tehran has got to seem to be doing something after such a blow. But there will be no attack by Iranian forces, or its proxies, on any Americans in the Middle East. The “harsh revenge” Iran threatens will amount to nothing. Trump’s hopeful audacity has paid off.
mortimer says
Washington Post shamefully referred to this terrorism chief as ‘revered’. They practically praised this enemy of the United States. It’s yet another ‘Jane Fonda’ moment!
You would think the WaPo thinks the US has no right to use force to defend itself or its troops.
Admiral Yamamoto was ‘revered’ in Japan, but the United States shot his plane down in WWII, because Yamamoto’s job was to cause American casualities. ‘He who lives by the sword’ should realize the enemy also has a sword. Solmeini knew he was sticking his head up out of the trench by visiting Iraq without an invitation.
A general who visits the front line has a fair chance of getting shot if the enemy snipers get him in their crosshairs.
Solmeini was in Iraq to plan and direct attacks on the American embassy, to kidnap Americans and kill them. He was also there to promote Shi’ite supremacism in Iraq to the detriment of Sunnite Iraqis and religious minorities. He was in Iraq to provoke the United States to start WWIII.
It is reasonable to take military action against an enemy commander when he is commanding military actions against your troops.
It is shocking to see the Leftards praising the enemies of the United States who regularly chant ‘Death to America’. The Leftards are truly deranged.
Jayme says
The Toronto Star gave complete support not only to Iranbut they called the protesters anti Muslim.
Ed Lee says
mortimer: Keep in mind that in WWII we sent 17 P-38s (which Japanese pilots called “the twin tailed devil”) to shoot down Yamamoto’s plane, and the Japanese still would not believe that we had broken their code system. Muslims are just as arrogant (maybe more so) as the Japanese were. That arrogance will never allow Muslims to believe that filthy infidels could have intercepted communications about Soleimani’s flight plan.
Anjuli Pandavar says
A great counter to the defeatist drumbeat. Thank you, Hugh.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Thank you, and not for the first time.
Yes, it will be interesting to see if Iran dares to do anything significant. I may be a vox claimants in deserto, but I still think that while the Iranian regime is evil, it is not idiotic.
Terry Gain says
Given that the Trump doctrine is to hit back twice as hard when attacked, there is only one Iranian response that makes any sense. I assume that all proper precautions have been taken, but in a free country I don’t believe anyone is perfectly safe. I certainly hope that I am wrong. I am not suggesting that Soleimani should not have been assassinated. It was long overdue.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
The computer changed my “Vox clamantis” to “Vox claimants,” making me look even dumber than I am. There’s nothing I could do about it; the damn computer has a mind of its own.
Infidel says
Your browser’s auto-correct at work, asking you, “Do you English”? 😈
James Lincoln says
I have a similar problem with DragonDictate. It spells all the words correctly – but sometimes chooses the wrong word.
I always proofread, but once in a while I miss a word…
Infidel says
Does Hugh dictate, or type? I type, and sometimes, my typed words are ‘corrected’ to something else that the browser’s built-in spellchecker has as a replacement
Rufolino says
Yes completely enfuriating. The Stockwell (sorry “autospell”) can alter the meaning of everything with just one word. Everything has to be read twice…
dumbledoresarmy says
I remember what you have said, on numerous occasions, about the ‘strong horse’ principle. Islam programs its thralls to adore sheer brute force. They don’t *like* it when a hated *Infidel* possesses and uses sheer brute force.. but they are still programmed to instinctively bow to superior force. (This is probably why the Ummah isn’t doing anything much in response to China’s suppression of its Muslim population). America has to act like the strong horse that it in fact is. (I have noticed something interesting; I think there have been fewer out-and-out large-scale mass-casualty Muslim terrorist attacks within western countries – the anglosphere in particular – since Trump came to power, than there were during the Obama years).
Infidel says
Tried posting the Twitter links yesterday, but they were blocked, so here’s the president’s tweet:
I love it. If Iran uses proxies like Hizbullah, they themselves will no longer be immune from attacks. And I love both the president picking a significant number like 52 (for the number of hostages) as well as targets important to Iran and the Iranian culture. Some suggestions:
– All of their nuke development sites, be it Natanz, Bushehr, Isfahan,…
– Tomb of Ayatollah Ruhoolah Khomenei, in Teheran
– Major Iranian military facilities
– That well in Qum where the 12th Imam lives, and is supposed to come out of on their judgement day
– Other major Islamic holy sites in Mashed
– Legendary headquarters of the Hashshashin cult in Alamut
Hopefully, that accounts for a number around 52
Hugh Fitzgerald says
“Important to Iranian culture”? I hope all pre-Islamic sites will be spared. To damage them would be a colossal error.
Infidel says
They should however target all historical Islamic holy sites – both shi’ite and sun’nite. Like that well in Qum, the shrine of the 8th imam in Mashhed, that Assassin stronghold in Alamut,… But more importantly, they should eviscerate their nuclear sites, and maybe some military sites as well near the Iraq border
gravenimage says
Agreed, Hugh.
Relic says
52 targets = house of cards
peter says
President Trump has put Iran firmly in it’s place and we would not have had the current problem if the previous presidents were not pussy footing around Iran and Middle East and threats of Islamic terrorism . Unlike most American politicians and Journalists(left wing variety) Iran’s leaders are very pragmatic. what Iran is doing is at best face saving !
Kesselman says
The talking heads have difficulties deciphering the outcome of the latest blow to Iranian self-esteem. They cannot see the forest for all the trees.—An exception is found in Peter Viggo Jakobsen head of the Department of Conflict and Security Studies at the Danish Inst. for Intl. Studies in Cpn.: “As a professional, I admire Trump’s take on the current conflict with Iran.” Donald Trump signals ‘escalation dominance,’ and it’s a schrewd move especially when you are capable in outmaneuvering your adversaries for good, Jakobsen says.
Bezelel says
I read on Gateway P. that komeanie put an $80 mil bounty on PDT. Not a very impressive amount but enough to warrant a US response. Note how that offer doesn’t require Iran to grow a pair.
Ed Lee says
Hugh: Thank you for your initial focus on the financial aspect of the Iranian situation. The people with the money run the world, not politicians or theologians. I encourage you to continue to focus on the money in relation to every facet of Islam. Money, or the lack of it, will make or break Islamic supremacism.
Walter Sieruk says
Soleimani was a very dangerous man. Therefore it was necessary that he was eliminated.
RonaldB says
Soleimani was a very talented general and thus a dual-edged sword. Trump said that our major objective in the Middle East was to eliminate ISIS, and Soleimani was certainly instrumental in that. He was probably instrumental in maintaining the Assad regime in Syria, against the US and Saudi-sponsored “moderate” Islamist rebel groups. Like the Gaddafi regime in Libya, an unsavory regime in a Muslim country can be beneficial to both the West and the country itself. The re-emergence of the authority of the Assad government will relieve a major source of pressure for Muslim migration to Europe. What’s not to like?
Soleimani is probably equivalent to the Vietnamese Vo Nguyen Giap, a blindly-talented warrior whose efforts resulted in multiple deaths to the US. I don’t know if he was involved in the attacks on the Saudi refineries, but those attacks came from Yemen, and Yemen was being pounded by the Saudi military. I can’t exactly term the refinery attacks as terrorism: it’s more a result as initiating an aggressive war and getting pounded.
Soleimani may indeed have been responsible for multiple deaths in Iran of protesters and Shi’a minority. I don’t think it’s the business of the US to right wrongs in the Arab or Muslim world. I oppose the US giving official encouragement to demonstrators in Iran because they should not be under the illusion that the US will do anything to help them. It’s equivalent to the 1956 Hungarian rebellion against the Russian occupation government: the rebels acted thinking the US would support them, and got massacred.
It’s pretty obvious to me the attack on the US embassy was symbolic. The attackers broke in, threw around some stuff, and retreated without injuring anyone. So, I don’t take the embassy attack as a reason for assassinating Solemani.
If Solemani was plotting actions which would result in the deaths of US soldiers, then his killing was justified. Whether or not you agree with the presence of US soldiers in a particular place, attacks on them should be met with appropriate, that is, decisive, force. But, as we found out in Vietnam, it’s not so easy for an advanced power to impose its will on a primitive, underdeveloped country. In fact, as we see in Afghanistan, it’s not so easy to even hold territory against mountain-dwelling shepherds. Prior to 2003, there was a pretty good balance between Iran and Iraq, and the natural enemies could neutralize each other. But, Bush’s folly ended that, resulting in Iraq becoming an Iranian province. That train has left the station.
The very worst thing we can do is underestimate Iran. You can read in the book “Dereliction of Duty” how the war in Vietnam was built on consistent lies: the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff lied to the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense lied to the President and the President lied to the public: all on the true amount of military commitment it would take to suppress the Viet Cong insurgency and the North Vietnamese military invasion of the south. President Johnson was constantly looking to his public image, and this was a reason he hamstrung the US military.
Similarly, the massive retaliation Trump speaks of will cause massive civilian deaths and destruction in Iran, which will be all over the news. Does it pay the US to engage in such tactics in a place not vital to US security? My preference is that since the Iraqi parliament voted to expel the US, we should accept their action and leave the region. I don’t care what happens to the plutocrat/keptocrat aristocracies in Saudi Arabia, who financed 9/11.
gravenimage says
With Soleimani Gone, the World is Much Safer Today
………………..
*Good*.