Iranian General Killed by US Attack

[Darwinianevolution]

Wyrdness said:

Darwinianevolution said:

Why hasn't the US invaded before? Why would they? The US doesn't need to invade a country to fight terrorism. They didn't need to invade Pakistan to hunt down Bin Laden, and likewise, the fact that terrorism continued after Irak and Afganistan meant that invading is not an universal, nor foolproof, solution. Measured use of force is needed in both diplomacy and military affairs. Solemini was a terrorist whose criminal acts could be traced back years ago (the attack of the israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 comes to mind, though there might be earlier attacks). The US had recognized his involvement in aiding local terrorist cells in Irak, and it was in a position to get to him within allied territory. This situation didn't need an invasion. If by taking down the terrorist you ended one of the most prominent heads of terrorism in the area and you send a message to Iran (who had started this whole affair with the attack to the embassy in Irak), why would you choose an invasion that would cost so much in lives, money and national and international image?

They didn't invade Pakistan instead they invaded Afghanistan and they're still fighting 18 years on when they went looking for Bin Laden if he is actually dead they funny enough neglected to use bombs like they did in Iraq nor was Bin Laden a Pakistani general, why would you choose an invasion? Well you tell us as yin your post you alluded to Iran's actions leading to an invasion yet going by the claims of both you and some media outlets on their general's activities if true then an invasion is warranted which tells me the reason one hasn't taken place is one of the two reason I highlighted.

US' actions have still damaged their image, jeopardize their position in the Middle East, has allies distancing themselves, run the risk of Iraq ejecting US troops not only losing a strategic position in the region but the country being taken by Iran which would put the Saudis the US suppliers of oil in a volatile position.

Measured response is key in this. If Iran had responded by killing american personnel in international soil, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had pushed for terrorist attacks and had claimed their involvement in them, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had threatened in a serious way the oil routes of the area, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. As it is, the whole deal has ended with Iran throwing missiles in such a way not a single american has turned out dead or wounded. If both Iran and the US are happy to let things as they are now (the US dealt with one of the most dangerous terrorists out there and sent a message to Iran, and Iran tried to save face by throwing missiles to the US bases in a way that supposedly made the regime look "strong" in front of its population and didn't led to immediate war) then that's that. No need for invasion, no need for war.

And about those later points, this doesn't weaken the US position in the Middle East at all. If anything it strengthens it. The western allies of the US know about the threat of terrorism, Irak is not going to eject US troops (both because of its own instability and because they also are at odds with Iran), and if Iran ever actually went ahead with the war threats, both US and Saudi Arabia would gladly ally together to take it down.