the weakening of iranian power in the area was a positive consequence

yes, america has armed militias before, and yes iran was doing what america has done before. from an ideological standpoint, america > iran

also iran instigated the violence this time

pompeo is no longer secretary of state, no one with a brain believes al qaeda is based in iran when they dont even follow the same islamic belief! the justification wasnt that, the justification was to show iran the consequences of what they were doing, iran responded and totally embarassed itself, it was put in its place

another positive consequence was iran losing a highly competent commander. now in case i need to outline- iran is bad, we dont need them spreading their ideology, it was made more difficult to do that with solemaini gone

the weakening of iranian power in the area was a positive consequence

Please illustrate how their power in the region is weaker.

yes, america has armed militias before, and yes iran was doing what america has done before. from an ideological standpoint, america > iran

Please elaborate on their competing ideologies and how you personally agree or disagree with them.

also iran instigated the violence this time

Please elaborate on this instigation and how it justifies an assassination.

pompeo is no longer secretary of state, no one with a brain believes al qaeda is based in iran when they dont even follow the same islamic belief! the justification wasnt that, the justification was to show iran the consequences of what they were doing, iran responded and totally embarassed itself, it was put in its place

Please elaborate on Al Qaeda's ideology and structure, acting Secretary of State Daniel Smith's views on Iran, and Iran's response to the assassination.

America acting like they are the boss in the middle east will forever create hate between America and people in the middle east which will lead to radicalization on both sides forever. So yes, it was a very bad thing.

Based on this take my opinon on this issue doesn't matter even though I'm Iranian (born there) and have family there.

power in the region is weaker as a platoon under the command of their most competent general no longer exists

Iran and us are competing ideologies in the sense iran is a radical theocratic state, not a democracy. america, despite being ranked as somewhat flawed compared to other democracies, is a liberal democracy. being gay, a woman, or of a religious minority in iran makes that look like walking in the park in america

the assassination was justified as to end the violence, america would need to show iran it wasnt playing. are you saying america should have just sat there taking it? this is geopolitics, you f*** with people they will get you back.

the last part im not so sure on, but it isnt unprecedented for us officials to propagandise or overblow, nowhere have i denied this

if the us cared about ethics they would stop the Palestinian occupation. Killing Solemaini was about power, nothing else

share your opinion. if you disagree with me i dont care, kind of the whole point of this thread

wasn't in response to your post. But I will say more in a sec, doing smth rn.

good question

Good thing the US isn't funding the genocide in Yemen for example

yeah that is 100% f***ed up i dont support it

i totally oppose the sale of arms to the vile saudi regime

i guess i should have phrased my initial question differently to, was the killing of qassem solemaini beneficial?

power in the region is weaker as a platoon under the command of their most competent general no longer exists

Power isn't an abstract concept. All of their forces still exist. They retain the same ground. Unless you want an escalation and armed conflict. Is that something you want?

Iran and us are competing ideologies in the sense iran is a radical theocratic state, not a democracy. america, despite being ranked as somewhat flawed compared to other democracies, is a liberal democracy. being gay, a woman, or of a religious minority in iran makes that look like walking in the park in america

The US helped overthrow a democratically elected leader and install a dictator in Iran in 1953. This is common knowledge. The CIA declassified it all.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

the assassination was justified as to end the violence, america would need to show iran it wasnt playing. are you saying america should have just sat there taking it? this is geopolitics, you f*** with people they will get you back.

What violence did it end?

Just another thing terrorists will use to radicalize more people

AFAIK he was like one of the most popular figures in Iran

im aware of the coup of the democratically elected leader, it was wrong, i dont support it at all. but that's in the past and cannot be undone

and basically iran retaliated, failed the retaliation embarrasingly, and have now pussied out

It was a lot more than that

I'm not sure how you think the US' domestic ideological stances negate this history nor why you think the US doing another war is good.

Both sides ass

US shouldnt start another war. But keep the same energy trump had. Dont give money to the ayatollahs ...

Good governments should not do business with fascists

As simple as that

Keep the same energy Trump had? Escalating tension abroad which will inevitably lead to intercontinental conflict? Bombing Iran? Assassinating their leadership? The actions and intentions do not gel.

Yeah keep the same energy trump had. He is the only president who hasnt started a war since Ford..

He didnt start a war and he didnt do business with the ayatollahs

Keep that energy yes

businessinsider.com/trump-have-bombed-yemen-more-than-bush-and-obama-combined-2020-10

You no longer need to declare war to wage it. Don't be naive. Sanctions are also economic warfare on civilian populations which kills people from a lack of medicine and food. This blinkered apologia is so misguided.

Out of every single bit of foreign policy that the Trump administration enacted, this is probably the one decision that may have been a sensible decision. I'm not gonna talk about whether or not it was morally justified or whether it was 'justice' delivered to Sulleimani, because all of that is ultimately nonsense, you can define or twist it however you like.

But in terms of how it relates to the US long term goals in the Middle East, it is difficult to argue that it was definitively a bad idea (as opposed to pulling the troops out of Syria for example which was a disaster). It is also difficult to say that it was definitively a move in the right direction, because of course it did have its drawbacks.

Sulleimani was an important and popular figure. He had a lot of experience directing proxy wars around the region and he had built a lot of relationships. A guy like that is difficult to replace. Talent doesn't grow on trees.

And in terms of Iranian retaliation, maybe the Trump administration didn't think about it (wouldnt' be surprising), or they did think about it and they came to the conclusion that Iran would not do anything drastic, in which case they would have been right. A lot of people have noted since the assassination that nethier side can afford a full scale conflict, so things would probably remain contained. However, a more precise observation would be that while the US cannot afford a war with Iran, Iran cannot survive a war with the US. Iran retaliated with some missile strikes against US bases in Iraq which did not kill any troops. They probably were never meant to, because that would likely escalate the confilict, which would end up worse for Iran than for the US.

In the end Iran was dealt a much larger blow than they dealt back, so the balance of power in the region was reaffirmed.

The issue here was that the hit happened on Iraqi soil without knowledge of the Iraqi government. Also, it appears that Solleimani was basically lured to the spot under the veil of negotiations with the Saudis. This of course led to the Iraqi parliment voting to expell US troops from Iraq. Moves like this have severely diminished the level of trust in the US throughout the Middle East, and this trust was never so firm to begin with.

edit: Even if you think it was the ultimately the correct decision, I wouldn't give the Trump administration any credit. More likely a case of the broken clock being right twice a day.

Trump helped the iranian people in the long run by weakening their fascist regimme...by cutting their money source...and like it or not by killing soleimani. this will lead to their end.. faster than if he had given them 150 billion dollars and allowed them to smuggle guns to syria to help assad

Good governments should not do business with fascists and should not start wars

I understand your point that killing soleimani could have resulted in war,, but it didnt so.. cant blame the man for something that hasnt happened

The US has installed and backed dictatorships across the world every time served their interests. To pretend that is the ideological battle being waged is ignorant. To pretend the only options are war or assistance is also dishonest. This isn't a productive discourse.

Yes and the islamic republic of iran is one of those dictatorships they have installed

But like trump said in the debates we dont need to go to war with these people for their energy anymore

Wasnt that the only honest moment in the debates. And also an admission of war crime..?. admitting that u only invade to benefit the energy company lobbyists???