The official British reaction, from Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, is as follows.



It rather depends who they are, where they are and what they're doing. Suleimani was an Iranian general, travelling outside Iran with no particular legal or diplomatic excuse that I know of, and purportedly directing military or paramilitary operations against US interests and personnel, which triggers America's right to self-defence under Art.51 of the UN Charter. I'm not sure it's much different from the case of the RAF Spitfire pilot strafing Rommel's staff car in France on 17 July 1944 (though of course the pilot did not know Rommel was on board, he was just interdicting enemy road traffic).

Whether it was a good idea or not... we'll see. The Iranians may orchestrate terrorist attacks in reprisal, or try to. But this event may make Iran's military leaders more wary of strutting around the Middle East ordering up the odd smorgasbord of massacre here and there, because they will now fear that the slightest chink in their electronic hygiene, or a single report from a seemingly insignificant person by the side of the road, might bring a US drone or manned aircraft winging into range.

"Chill out" is not a strategy, it's a weak metaphor comparing a street encounter between toughs to geopolitical competition for a resource region.

Iran is not going to "chill out" in the sense of ceasing to influence the region. It lives there. Similarly, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc. are not gong to stop playing the great game. Iran, like all nations, is sensitive about what happens on its borders, like in Iraq. Iraq invaded Iran about 40 years ago. Iran will remain a player there.

The strength and objectives of Iran will not change for the loss of one commander. So we have taken a highly unpredictable and dangerous risk for momentary headlines. The attack at the Iraqi airport makes sense only as tawdry political opportunism by Trump, or in promoting the Neocon's dogmatic fixation on a greater war with Iran.

You seriously want a regional war?

Kibitzer in Chief




PairTheBoard

one of the weird things in all of this the descriptions of this as decisive or “slapped the **** out of them”. there had been a lot myth making around this guy but at the end of the day he was just one guy and he’ll be replaced within hours by someone else and nothing will change operationally

countries unify and rally to the cause when facing outside threats and iran will too here

the us didn’t leave iraq the last time. they were kicked out by the iraqi government. there’s a good chance the same will happen now. alternatively iran and friends will just make life miserable for americans in iraq until they leave

Bigger for sure and engulfing the entire mideast. After the election. Move to the Southern hemisphere if you can.

It was the US that reneged on the comprehensive and successful nuclear agreement. The contemporary escalation in tension dates to this.

You should probably look up the definition of terrorist. Him being a military commander quite relevant!

I've said it already, but Iran's diplomacy is built on subversion. You can't argue that Iran is just like everyone else attempting to influence the region.

Of course I don't want war, and neither do most proponents of this attack. However, you can't let terrorists keep hitting you. That's not foreign policy. They will keep doing it until you respond. I'm not a fan of neocon policy, but this attack was not a based on neocon stuff.

People pretend Iran is an honest actor, they are not. They have repeatedly provoked the US, and it's not like we've been bombing Iran in response. We've ignored it, until we couldn't.

Lastly, Iran can't target anything meaningful. They really have no play, and the US just made that clear. They will lose way more than they can get with one of their subversive acts, due to clear US capabilities that was exhibited.

Will? No, it isn't certain, but it is on the table, most likely Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire when Iran backs Iraq in kicking out the entirety of the American presence there, and then Trump and his team or warmongers decide they can't look weak. Bloodshed in Iran, Israel, and US interests around the world. On US soil is unlikely, but nonzero.

This is broadly correct. Declared wars are not a thing since 1945, because ultimatums and the resulting declarations of war amount to a threat of force forbidden by the UN Charter. So we're in a permanent world of mush and grey areas and undeclared wars. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with killing an enemy military commander currently engaged on war operations against you.

Again, we don't yet know whether it was a good idea -- though, in Syria, bakers are selling special jammy pastries to celebrate the death of a monster -- but it wasn't some massive crime or outrage. And it's unlikely to cause a flat-out war, because Iran can't afford that. And if a flat-out war were America's intention, then the US Air Force would now be busily degrading Iran's air-defence network, and they aren't. (And the British probably wouldn't let the Americans use Fairford, Akrotiri or Diego Garcia, just as they didn't when the Obama administration was making contingency plans for an attack on Iran some years back. Without those bases, it gets logistically difficult.)

Bullshit. Iran has used proxys to attack US interest before, during, and after.

Actual reaction in the Middle East:-



Thread:- https://twitter.com/Kyruer/status/1213063984171143169

Finally a good call by Yglesias, that panned out again





I'm telling you, the "don't trust liars" strategy is the best way to go

Well-known UK Muslim journalist Oz Katerji's view:-

No one is arguing he wasn't bad.

Meaning what? Every power in the region spies, they all arm rival militias, they mount proxy attacks. Subversion? No one matches the Saudi funding of madrases promoting Wahhabi extremism, ffs.

Now we are judging countries the way we choose a plumber? All the governments in the region act as states. Shall we compile lists of atrocities by country, then anoint the shortest as Honest Actor? Asking for a friend: If he reneges on an international nuclear treaty, is he still an Honest Actor?

There was a recent militia shelling that Iran might be responsible for. What else you got? You must be thinking about the Wahhabis, in which case it's war with Saudi Arabia that you want. But we are not an Honest Actor in Iraq, we invaded, remember? We invade, establish bases, now call it unfair that Iran, a country on Iraq's border, builds relationships with militias? You made your bed. For reasons of your own, you've chosen to identify with the American quest for real estate in oil country. Fine, but don't be shocked by friction and fool yourself into thinking you are the Honest Actor while the others are terrorists. The death toll we inflicted on Iraq dwarfs all the terrorist cabals put together.

So maybe they'll negotiate a nuclear deal or something.

Iran is not interested in provoking the US. But it can't forgo influence in Iraq -- the country on its border that once started a war that killed a million people. You can respond to this situation by escalating or negotiating. How's Trump's abrogation of the nuclear treaty working out for the US contractor who was just killed?

Didn't our closest and presumably more honest ally kidnap the head of state of Lebanon and then make him air his retirement on TV and also bonesaw an a reporter under our protection for being too progressive and being a dissident?

He gets a pension from the DoD go easy on him.

It's so god damn tiring that those who support acts such as this never ever acknowledge the role the US has played in escalating things to get here. It's as if Iran sat back and kept poking a bear and we did nothing until now. It's complete bullshit.

Speaking of the US Contractor killed do we actually know anything about him or her, like I don't know a name?

Oz Katerji goes on at greater length, and quite interestingly, here. The comeback will probably be messy, but will probably not for the most part affect Americans.

https://www.newstatesman.com/world/m...dshed-far-over

Assassinating Saudi leaders will not reduce pressure on dissidents. This is best handled by a private expression of American diplomatic concern.

Israel is watching.

So you do or don't think this assassination will serve as a deterrent?

Who is pretending Iran is an honest actor?

And would you not call American troops meaningful targets?

Maybe let their family have some privacy? What are you going to do with a name anyway?

How many military/terrorist actions has the US taken against Iranian forces/embassies?