I'll Slug You, and If You Resist, I'll Slug You Harder
U.S. Strategy in Iran
U.S. messaging to Iran, courtesy of President Trump, is quite simple: We slugged you (with our bombing attacks on three nuclear sites in your country), and if you don’t like it, we’ll slug you again, even harder, much, much harder.
Iran’s only real choice: “unconditional surrender,” according to the president.
Well, it’s a strategy, I suppose, the one of the abuser, the bully. Do what I want, else you’ll get slugged. Try to fight back, I’ll slug you much much harder. Oh, by the way, I believe in peace. And you can have peace by totally capitulating to me.
Another way of looking at or labeling this stategy: Bombing for Bibi. Yes, I know it’s not just Bibi Netanyahu behind it all. But he’s the chief flatterer, the skilled string-puller, the master manipulator of Trump. Not that it’s entirely hard to manipulate a narcissist who’s driven by money and consumed by his own ego.
So, we have to look to Iran to show a measure of restraint, since the U.S. and Israel won’t. If Iran chooses to fight, especially to hit back at U.S. targets in the region, all bets are off as our country stumbles into what could become World War III.
As Jimmy Dore put it today, No matter who you vote for, you get John McCain. A warmonger. Someone proud to joke about bombing Iran—and crazy enough to do it. Does it really matter if the warmonger is named Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden—or Donald Trump?
Congress, no surprise, is almost entirely behind Trump’s attack, despite some griping and sniping from the sidelines. Congress may complain, but it’s just posturing. That’s how you get reckless wars of choice that are unsupported by the American people.
Oh well. “We love you, God,” as Trump said last night as he announced the bombings. I never learned in CCD that God loves bombs and bombing; I must have been sleeping or absent for that one. Thou shalt kill, right?
I didn't bother to read it, but a NY Times editorial this morning has called Trump's act of war a courageous decision.
That I guess is the "official' opinion of the ruling class - a ruling class that believes it is above any and all laws, particularly as regards the crimes of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel.
In answer to Jeff's post of Scott Ritter's rant - I guess we'll see this week if the majority of the citizenry even understands the meaning of Trump's crimes. Unless they pressure the Congress critters to crawl out from under their rocks and call for impeachment, we'll know the ruling class has again succeeded.
WJA - Perhaps you could lend some perspective, given your background in the military...
I've been poking around a bit on the founding of the UN, the ICJ, and international law on war crimes, simultaneously both highly pertinent to yet also highly ignored with regard to circumstances from Oct. 7th right up to today. This is the question I need to research further: as a result of the Nuremberg Tribunals held after WWII, wasn't it held that military personnel not only were allowed to disobey, but had a duty to disobey orders where the moral or legal were significant?
The attacks on Iran, not being sanctioned by the UN Security Council, were a crime. Ergo, a (savvy, principled) pilot of B-2 could say to his (or her) superior, "Sorry, boss, but I ain't goin', you got no right to make me a war criminal."
Similarly, world history could have been changed - for the better, this time - had Colin Powell, appearing before the Security Council to get the okay to go ahead with the invasion of Iraq, had actually said, "Mr. President, I was prepared to present to the Council the evidence for military action against Iraq, but you know what, it's all a crock, I can't go through with this."
It's conceivable that had Powell been able to rustle up the (admittedly considerable) courage to do so, we wouldn't be facing today what we're facing today.
Anyway, your thoughts appreciated.