Does Trump provoke Iran as an election stunt?

On the 2nd of January, Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general, on Iraqi soil. While there was context leading up to this (I'll get to that), it's a fact several experts and pentagon employees claim it was just 'another day in the middle east'. Congress wasn't even informed of the action until afterward.

I have to admit: I never heard of the guy. And my guess is: neither did you (hint: his name never came up on gbatemp until now). But that's okay, because neither did Donald Trump prior to his election. That's not the issue, though: you don't have to be the poster child of Al-qaeda or IS to be an enemy of the USA. The problem is that Soleimani wasn't leading some gang of ragtag rebels, but is (was) a genuine Iranian military leader. About the second most important man in Iran, as far as I hear. So lemme ask you this: if another country bombs Mike Pence...would it be considered an act of war (regardless of whether it was provoked or not)?

...I'm going to assume your answer is "yes" in this (if not, please comment below ). So likewise, it's not exactly surprising that the entire country screams "death to the US"(1). And hey...since Donald treats the country as if they aren't following the nuclear agreement, exactly what reason do they still have to follow that treaty in the first place(2)? Result:

@donald Trump: thanks a lot, fuckwad. You might not care about maintaining relationships with a country that want to throw a nuclear bomb on your ass, but the rest of the world fucking cares. I hope you not only get removed from office but put on a one-way ticket to the middle east, asshole. Good luck convincing them in person that your action was to avoid war.


Ahem...personal opinion aside: let's talk about how we got in this mess (source: NY times). Soleimani wasn't an innocent Joe by a long shot. From what I gather (yes: after the facts) Soleimani ordered bombings on US military depots in the region(3) in december. Following this, pentagon officials gave Trump some options on how to respond to this. Taking Soleimani oout was apparently a comedy last option. A sort of equivalent of a "GO ALL NUCLEAR ON THEM!!!!" option that's only there to make the other options less humane(4).
It has to be said: Trump went with an "eye for an eye" response: the US followed suit and bombed some Iranian facilities. Yes, it's cynical that this is considered "another day in the middle east" by experts, but that's how things go.
Of course Iran (Soleimani?) acted as if their casualties were important - gee? I wonder why? - and talked about retaliation.

At this point, Trump's thought process becomes important. The guy is an enemy of the US, no doubt about it. That's what happens if you scavenge other countries for their natural resources: you learn how to live with having enemies. And admitted: trading bombardments isn't exactly going to bring world peace any closer. Why why the elimination?
Look...I didn't call Al-qaeda and IS "ragtag rebels" because I like saying it but because at the time their leaders were killed, it's what they had become. If Bin Laden or al-Baghdadi were killed when their groups were the hype of the day, two others would have taken their place. So as much as I personally dislike Donald, taking out al-Baghdadi was, effectively, the right thing to do. So a 'thanks' is in order. So here it is: thanks, Donald. I'd say "try not to squander your built reputation credit all at once", but you were already so far in the negative that gratefulness was hardly closer.
But to get back at that thought process: what was he thinking prior to choosing that assassination? Did he blatantly forget that Iran has nuclear potential? Did he really not foresee that this call for war would be their reaction? Was he jealous of the fact that Soleimani fought IS better than the US army? Was he seeing an opportunity to deflect the attention from the fact that he's impeached and facing trial? (because yeah...thanks to this shit show, nobody's asking McConnell why he wants to turn the Senate's most important duty into class justice(5) ) Oh, and right...shouldn't Pompeo and Pence be the adults in the room? I mean...it's been a public secret since about the release of 'Fire and fury' that the white house employees more or less run the place by choosing which documents Trump gets to read. Shouldn't these muppets be able to temper him when he has a tantrum like this?

Either way...that's when the decision was made to start a war with Iran. You might disagree and be dumb enough to think that it's just about taking out an enemy of the US, but as I've pointed out these matters are inseparable at this point. Heck...it's worse than that: by killing without warning on Iraqi soil, just about the entire middle east now has beef with the US. And that's about as grim as it can be: a unified middle east would've been a fine thing to achieve. But unfortunately for us(6), they're uniting against the West...


Since then, Trump is of course playing dumb (her's a backhand compliment for ya: he's good at that). Claiming on one hand that he doesn't want a war but almost at the same time saying he has 52 targets picked in case Iran responds in any way. Meanwhile Pence openly talks about lunatic conspiracy theories (seriously? 9/11 AGAIN? No, Mike. Get off the stage before someone hands you a "when you lose the crowd, mention 'weapons of mass destruction' until they cheer for you again" card). So...war. Yeey.

Fuckwads.


Oh...right: the poll. At this point I can't even be bothered to attempt neutrality. For what it's worth, I voted "No, he's just too dumb". It's a myth to think that leaders are much smarter than you...they at best have better advisors. But since Trump fires everyone smarter than him, I think that reducing his huga-ass impopularity (last I heard 55% wanted him removed from office. That's a lot, considering that most Americans avoid politics like the plague) is at best a factor in his process. He's just a weak man trying to be strong. So he makes those decisions, expecting that someone else will clean up the mess (what? HIS mess? of course not! He's Donald Trump. Donald Trump doesn't do mistakes ).





(1): in this matter, it's actually convenient that Pence isn't exactly a charismatic leader that is a shining beacon to his people. If he was, the comparison would've been better but y'all would have taken it way too personal to even consider that other countries might not want their leaders get killed by foreigners either.
(2): yes, I know...in a theoretical fashion, the treaty is still held between Iran and the EU member states. But since the USA bullies our companies when they do business with Iran, it undermines that reason to uphold it as well
(3): he's also suspected of that attack on oil transports at sea and a drone strike on an oil refinery. While not proven, these are considered to have a huge impact on the global oil market
(4): both W. Bush and Obama were in similar situations. They went (and stayed with) other options
(5): at least republicans aren't wrong when they call it 'a sham' or 'kangourou court'. Now all they need to do is admit that it's because of their actions (refute witnesses, allowing documents not to be released, openly discuss with the accused...)
(6): make no mistake: Europe at best isn't immediately involved in this mess. But like your Iraqi mess lead to IS lead to multiple bombings (among which in my proverbial backyard), I'm sure that Europe will be seen as an accomplish in the upcoming mess as well.

 

I have to disagree with this. Yes, the attack of the embassy is a literal attack on the USA (casualties: 1 US contractor; 2 Iraqi security forcesEDIT: it was actually zero). It was the incident I was referring to earlier. Trump's initial response was bombing five weapon storage facilities...on Iranian soil (casualties: 25 militia members). Again: it's a grim trade, and particularly cynical if that is to be "another day in the middle east". But let's not pretend that Soleimani just had a bad day when he ordered that attack. All of these actions are based on prior actions by the other team. That's why "but he started it!!!" is hardly fair, and it's more important to respond in a correct fashion.

EDIT: rats...I've got my own sources wrong. @Xzi was actually right: the attack on the embassy was more a bunch of hooligans trashing the reception area of the US embassy.

To be clear, the situation was as follows:
-27/12: attack on Iraqi airbase (casualties: that one US contractor I mentioned earlier. The security forces were injured instead of killed).
-29/12: bombing of five weapon storage facilities...but in Iraq and Syria (casualties: those 25 militia members)
-31/12: storming of the US embassy by a bunch of hooligans (in Baghdad, Iraq)

Okay...I'll take that into consideration. But since you're so empathic, surely you can return the favor and imagine how it would be if you were one of the 25 militia members in that weapon depot. Or being nuked to death because some leaders don't give a damn about consequences.

I blame Trump for bringing nuclear war closer to reality. That's a far stretch from blaming him the sky is blue. Not just because I happen to be right in this, but also because it's also fucking IMPORTANT. Peace is worth fighting for. And Trump's the enemy in this case.
Feel free to disagree, but trying to do it off as me being subjective isn't going to change that he's bringing a huge war more likely to happen.

 

Sorry...it is I who stands corrected. Upon checking for an answer, I found that contractor wasn't in the embassy but on a military base (I edited my previous reply to reflect this).
From https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/31/us-embassy-attack-iraq-091585]this source[/url]: No one was immediately reported hurt in the rampage and security staff had withdrawn to inside the embassy earlier, soon after protesters gathered outside.

...but from what I read, I'd say this was just a public riot. Not aimed, not political, not...really anything but people disliking US bombing them. So at this point, I'm sort of lost in how Soleimani enters this picture (aside from being a checkpoint on a list on the pentagon, that is).

I'm perhaps naive in believing the US government in this regard, but unlike Trump, I believe that the US army doesn't make these sorts of allegations lightly. If for no other reason, they're the one having to deal with the consequences (@wartutor: take note, buddy. I'm subjective towards Trump, but still give your army the benefit of the doubt).

 

Easy: they do the same reasoning you do. The constant bombings, casualties and threats don't breed much sympathy for the US. Rather the contrary, in fact. Just now, I read in my local news paper that Iran is actually rather torn on Soleimani: the conservative/religious groupings loved him and are prime to avenge him. The more liberal just want to try to build up the country. However, with Trump pointing out (among others) cultural heritages, he's rubbing this group the wrong way as well.
Result: that "For all i care they can turn that whole country into nuclear rubble" opinion is gaining popularity there as well. It's just referring to the US rather than Iran.

I don't like repeating myself, mate. Remember I said that if you do that when his support is strong, you'll just create two more? That's what's happening now. Trump's shortsightedness increased the problem rather than decrease it.

I can agree to that. Did you see me judge Trump from bombing those military complexes? You didn't, because I don't.

That'll get you both killed (and probably a large part of the rest of the world due to the fallout). It's that "if it comes to it" that is the crux here: you don't get to let it come to it. Why do you think I want Trump removed from office? Because he's a bad leader? Sorry, but no. Empathy aside, I honestly don't care that much because I'm not a citizen in your banana republic. I want him because he's a hazard to the rest of the world. He's not the only world leader in that regard, but at least the others try to seek some sort of equilibrium. Trump just wants to see the world burn.
So to borrow your phrase: he needs to get off the pot.