The Anti-Benghazi

[icansayit]

I am sure that America doesn't seek war. Of course you don't ... no sane, civilised person seeks war if it can be averted.

I'm not at all sure, however, that America's opposition in this world is entirely sane opposition, much less civilised.

I think that Iran will view Trump's speech from today as America showing weakness. They will want to exploit it, if they can. I suspect that Iran's belligerence - as a direct consequence - won't have ended yet. Iran wants propagandist advantage. Showing America to be weak gives it that advantage.

We'll see how this plays out. My prediction is that Iran will try something else. They may even think that America has weathered Iran's attack rather too well for its liking, that the punishment factor hasn't been properly inflicted as of yet, that more is 'owed'.

If Iran is suffering from sanctions, and faces yet worse of the same, the desire to strike back in retribution may only worsen.

Let's see if I understand our enemies as well as I think I do. Time will tell !

I do appreciate your candor on this. But I have much more confidence that Iran, while they may think they have an upper hand. Do not know who they are really dealing with in this matter. President Trump is not another Obama, or Bush who sought to appease, rather than make any waves since 1979, when Reagan scared them into releasing the hostages. So, I simply remember. Trump wrote "THE ART OF THE DEAL". And he, more than anyone else around him in Washington, is not a typical politician who holds his finger up to see which way the Winds of Stupidity are blowing. Call me old fashioned, or Biased, but the Old Sailor in me who has served under Six Presidents. Kinda has a different ear to differences in Commanders in Chief. And this one DOES NOT WANT A WAR. I believe he will be calling All of our troops home, just to make the Dems and Trump Haters scream that he is placing America in Danger by doing so. MURPHY'S LAW APPLIES.
p.s...LBJ, NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, BUSH, CLINTON...in case anybody wondered.��

[Drummond]

You may be correct, I don't doubt it. At the same time, it is incumbent on a powerful nation or person for that matter, to take the path of least destruction until there is no other choice. There's very few countries that wouldn't like to take the US down a peg or more. Iran, I contend, is an unstable proxy of Russia and even China. The more complex issue right now though is that Iran has so very many of its own proxies, which may make any 'cease fire' pointless in any case.

There's nothing to say that the Iraqi thugs doing the Iranian mullahs work won't go rogue. Hezbollah is really uncontrollable. So on and so forth. I do not doubt that there are many in Iran's military are not happy that there are strong rumors that the US got a head's up prior to the attack last night, from Iranian sources.

Well, if you think of the path of destruction being cumulative, it could be said that a number of 'little' skirmishes may add up to more than one big one. If Iran is still itching, for whatever precise reason, to do more ... then, restraint may ultimately not count for very much.

I still say that Iran may interpret, and may actively wish to interpret, America's appearance of restraint as weakness that's exploitable.

A complication, though, is one you mention: Iran's links with more powerful nations, notably Russia. Action taken against Iran that's too overtly strong could drag Russia into a more active role. Indeed, Iran could be counting on it.

I think that if America got a 'heads up', it came from Iraq becoming aware of what was to come, and Iraq giving a warning. I don't think Iran would've wanted American forces to receive a warning ... my feeling is that they would've wanted a price in blood to be paid, as 'just' recompense for the assassination of their 'No 2'.

No. I don't think this is over yet. There will be more from Iran. That is, if I read my bloodthirsty Muslim maniacs correctly ....