This should ruffle some Iranian feathers : )

[Graybeard]

No question they'll do something....  Continue working on nuclear weapon(s), continue to explort terror and support terrorist groups to destabilize the region, attack shipping in the Persian Gulf, attack more Saudi targets, target Israel, etc, etc.   Check all those boxes.  What else?  Open warfare with US?  Couldn't defeat Iraq in 8 years of war more than 30 years ago; any reason to believe their military capabilities have substantially improved since then?  By the way US doesn't rely on Middle Eastern oil the way it once did. 

They have a host of there own internal issues associated with ever tightening sanctions; that's why they were shooting their own demonstrators in the streets 5 weeks ago.  Those strangulating sanctions are a key reason they've been lashing out over last year. 

Oh they'll do something no doubt.  I personally doubt open direct conflict with US but they're also not going to wake up tomorrow and abandon their vision of a Muslim Fundamentalist Shite Empire stretching to the Mediterranean and beyond.

Exactly right! They've been spouting their rhetoric all of my adult life. When wasn't there an Iranian jihad against America? When haven't they burned our flags and shouted "death to America" in the streets? This has been going on since the Shah was deposed. Reminds me of "double secret probation" from the movie Animal House. Are we facing double secret jihad?! Oh, no

[rognp]

Keep in mind that much of their own citizenry isn't really happy with the state of affairs in Iran. They're in the difficult position of keeping a lid on things at home and trying to project power outside their borders. Something like blown up refineries or the loss of their navy would be catastrophic to them. No income and no threats in the gulf would show them to be the paper tiger they really are.

I'm sure they'll do something, totally hype it in their own media, claim victory, and more ridiculous rhetoric will follow.

I think youre right here, the chief cleric or ayatolli or whatever is in a precarious position . If he doesnt show a significant rsponse hes yesterdays toast with his own populace. But I think hes really looking over his shoulder or looking for shadows @ 40K feet. He has to be aware that any bad behavior can really put his anatomy close to a wringer.  Glad Im not their.

   On the other hand I think we really need to be on the look out for a sleeper group right here at home. The Iranians aint stupid and they largely dont appear as swarthy or hirsute as the more eastern countrymen.  The other thing I worry about is that we need to put a permanent damper on the enrichment programs . Im sure the zealots wont do that so the choices narrow down then dont they.? Someones going to have to step up and break their U235 factories.
   Id hazard a guess and say the danger of a dirty bomb would be the easiest thing for them to do, and the hardest for us to prevent.
That would be one of my geater concerns.

[Graybeard]

Keep in mind that much of their own citizenry isn't really happy with the state of affairs in Iran. They're in the difficult position of keeping a lid on things at home and trying to project power outside their borders. Something like blown up refineries or the loss of their navy would be catastrophic to them. No income and no threats in the gulf would show them to be the paper tiger they really are.

I'm sure they'll do something, totally hype it in their own media, claim victory, and more ridiculous rhetoric will follow.

I think youre right here, the chief cleric or ayatolli or whatever is in a precarious position . If he doesnt show a significant rsponse hes yesterdays toast with his own populace. But I think hes really looking over his shoulder or looking for shadows @ 40K feet. He has to be aware that any bad behavior can really put his anatomy close to a wringer.  Glad Im not their.

   On the other hand I think we really need to be on the look out for a sleeper group right here at home. The Iranians aint stupid and they largely dont appear as swarthy or hirsute as the more eastern countrymen.  The other thing I worry about is that we need to put a permanent damper on the enrichment programs . Im sure the zealots wont do that so the choices narrow down then dont they.? Someones going to have to step up and break their U235 factories.
   Id hazard a guess and say the danger of a dirty bomb would be the easiest thing for them to do, and the hardest for us to prevent.
That would be one of my geater concerns.

I actually think it would be fairly hard for them to deploy a dirty bomb on our soil and I hope I'm right. I also hope you're right, "The Iranians ain't stupid..." as it would lead to their almost immediate annihilation. As far as their Ayatollah goes, he can say and do almost anything. There is no central religious authority in Islam and no one in Iran can question his authority.

If I lived in a anti 2nd amendment state, I might be a little worried about a terrorist/mass shooter kind of thing. But since I live a stone throw from Detroit, not really my biggest concern. Plenty of people legally armed and too many illegally, for that kind of nonsense to get very far. That said, I wouldn't want to be working in a tanker in the Persian Gulf right now.

As we all know, freedom isn't free. If we have to deal with some blowback from using force against crazy zealots, so be it. We all know Obummer's pallets of cash diplomacy didn't work.

[Sneed]

Everyone here seems comfortable with the idea the president may kill anyone he wants. Is that limited to those not citizens of the U.S.? If you think it is where does the limitation come from? Where does ANY limitation come from? Trump is generally liked here - I voted for him FWIW - but once you're ok with him doing this how are you not ok with the next dim president doing so? Seems to me that once congress, may it RIH, declined to enforce its sole power to declare war we were left with this complete lack of standards and legality. If DT may do this then so may uncle Joe or whoever next takes the office. Are you equally comfortable with that?

[Graybeard]

IIRC, it was the Obama administration that got the authority to kill U.S. citizens, here and abroad, and did so with a drone strike in Yemen. I can't remember the name of the act that Congress passed to make that possible. Perhaps someone else will chime in.

[Kenk]

It might be the (AUMF) - Authorization to Use Military Force act

[Graybeard]

I think you're right Ken.

More good news on this topic https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/01/06/condolences-qassem-soleimani-iraqi-consulate-southfield/2822725001/

In summary the Iraqi consulate in Southfield, MI, is having a 2 day memorial for this guy. Interesting to note, Southfield has a large Jewish population and is also home to many Chaldeans (Iraqi Catholics) for those unfamiliar. Both groups persecuted by both sunni and shiite muslims. Kind of makes me feel like our "allies" are spitting in our faces. Hopefully the FBI and Homeland Security will get a look at all who attend.

[Rojo27]

Everyone here seems comfortable with the idea the president may kill anyone he wants. Is that limited to those not citizens of the U.S.? If you think it is where does the limitation come from? Where does ANY limitation come from? Trump is generally liked here - I voted for him FWIW - but once you're ok with him doing this how are you not ok with the next dim president doing so? Seems to me that once congress, may it RIH, declined to enforce its sole power to declare war we were left with this complete lack of standards and legality. If DT may do this then so may uncle Joe or whoever next takes the office. Are you equally comfortable with that?

As others pointed out BO was very, very active in rubbing out enemy combatants (including US citizen(s)) in this manner.  So the question about a Dem. doing it doesn't require speculation.  Also and with all due respect; it appears you framed your comment with a false premise concerning the various answers indicating we are all "comfortable with the idea the president may kill anyone he wants."  I for one certainly don't feel that way, nor do I find any other replies that even remotely lend themselves to that conclusion. 

Let's at least be honest and clear about exactly who this person was and the why he was a eliminated....  This was one bad hombre.He was the focal point of a state sponsored terror regime.  By the way, this cat was barred by UN resolution from traveling to other countries.  He wasn't on vacation in Bagdad, he was there to overtly coordinate stepped up terrorist attacks on American targets.  This dude had American blood on his hands, not to mention countless others from the region and fully intended on spilling more.  I don't know how that adds up in on your ledger but those are direct acts of war in my view.  I would hope that the President from either party would have the resolve to remove a direct threat of this magnitude whenever the opportunity presented itself; all the more so when caught in the act. 

Be that as it may, it's still pretty damn far from being comfortable with a President killing anyone for any reason... 

[Kenk]

Well put Rojo!

[Kenk]

Prayers for our troops!!!


https://www.foxnews.com/world/missile-attacks-target-us-forces-in-iraq-senior-military-source-says-iran-suspected