NightlyPoe said:
...
I hesitate to wade into this thread, but did anyone notice that while everyone was arguing about the semantics of the legalistic definition of "imminent", that Iran was forced to back down, was humiliated, have had many of their proxies flee in fear, and have so badly mishandled the situation domestically that (far from the promise of an Iran united by the strike) they are facing large-scale demonstrations that will occupy their attention for a time? They're so messed up right now that they arrested the British ambassador the other day. Not to mention that Soleimani is gone forever and with him much operational experience in projecting power via proxy?
Seems to me that, when all the shouting dies down and the political arguments are waved away, the operation was a success beyond what could reasonably be hoped for in terms of deterring Iranian aggression with minimal blowback. Maybe something will blow up tomorrow, but that's where it stands at the moment.
|
Actually what this shows me is that Iran is not the aggressor and doesn't want war, but the US desperately needs a reason to invade Iran somehow. It also shows me the Iranian people have a will and while they stand with their leaders against American aggression, invasion and Imperialism, they do not condone the other actions the Iranian leadership has taken and accident or not, they are not happy that innocents died. It reflects more positively on Iran in my viewpoint than it does the US. And I think the US didn't get what it wanted because the US wants war.
