Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Peace and Evil
“If peace cannot be maintained with honor, it is no longer peace.” – Lord John Russell
“The left doesn’t fight evil; it fights those who do.” – Dennis Prager
On Thursday, Qassim Soleimani, one of the evilest men on Earth was killed. Immediately, the American left, including virtually every Democrat running for President, and numerous Democrats in the House and Senate condemned the action. At first, the condemnations were prefaced with the acknowledgment Soleimani was a bad actor. By Friday evening, many of those prefaces had been walked back.
Why? Because Orange Man Bad.
The action even got support – sometimes grudging and sometimes wholehearted – from many anti-Trumpers. They recognized evil. But the left? Not them. Was there ever a better illustration of Prager’s statement?
Even now, there are some who provide a “yes, but” for their approval. They say it was the right thing to do, but it might lead to war with Iran. That is where Lord John Russell’s statement comes into play. What type of “peace” is it if Iran is allowed to attack us with impunity, without severe consequences? What type of peace did we buy with $1.7 billion in cash sent to Iran? What type of peace did we achieve by ignoring Iran’s involvement in Benghazi? What type of peace would we achieve by ignoring Iranian attempts to reprise Benghazi in Baghdad?
This might lead to war. I rather doubt it, because the Iranian regime has a lot more to lose than the US does if they go from covert to overt belligerency. The world does not need Iranian oil. Iran is incapable of projecting conventional military power much beyond the borders of Iran. In a period of open belligerency their ability to project unconventional military power is more constrained than it is now.
Any war with Iran will not be a reprise of the Gulf War, Iraq, or Afghanistan. The United States can impose crippling punishment upon Iran without risking a single soldier’s boot on Iranian soil. We can take out 80 percent of Iran’s electrical power generation, most of its oil production, and all of its ability to ship oil by sea, with unmanned missiles, stealth bombers, and a sea blockade. Using conventional weapons. In a country experiencing significant domestic unrest.
Iran’s best hope is the mobilization of its fifth column in the United States – the mainstream media and the Democrats. And those two entities have shot themselves dry in three years of fake Trump scandals. All they would do is complete their self-destruction by further discrediting themselves.
Two-and-one-millennia ago, Persia gave the Spartans a list of atrocities they would visit upon Sparta if the Persians enter Lacedaemonia should Sparta refuse to yield to Persian demands. The Spartan king replied with one word, “if.”
That seems an apt response today. If.
Published in General
This is true.
But Iran is a major funding source and supporter of terrorist networks around the world. Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat’s great insight was that even if you can’t wage conventional war with a superior military force, you can still win with terrorist attacks against civilian targets.
Can Iran launch terrorist attacks within the United States? Against civilian targets on our mainland? I’m not sure.
But we’re about to find out.
Obviously, they’re going to try.
Or will they? Trump has given them pause. I’m sure there are discussions going on in Iranian military planning sessions – “Hey, we’ve got a doctor’s kid in Dearborn who says he can bomb a shopping mall there. Let’s do it! Ha!” Another general: “Um, I wonder what Trump’s response would be to that? Would you like to sign that order?”
My suspicion is that our low level war with Iran, which has been ongoing since 1979ish, will probably continue much as it has. I could be wrong, but I just can’t see Iran launching major attacks in response to this.
Had to tweet your Prager and Russell quotes :)
This is the unconventional power to which I referred in the final sentence of the paragraph you quoted. If Iran actually does declare war on the US (or does something that releases us to use our armed forces in an unconstrained way), their ability to launch terrorist attacks is degraded. We can go after the networks of those supporting the terrorists with conventional forces.
Which is my conclusion. As long as we are not in an open, conventional war with them, they can use cut-outs and asymmetric warfare. Guerrillas and terrorists cannot operate long when there are conventional forces and battlefield and martial law are in effect. Further, should they declare war, their electricity, oil production and oil transportation systems are toast. And we can use asymmetric warfare against them, supplying their dissidents with arms and ammunition, and turning Iran into a vast theater of guerrilla warfare – the Mullah against their own people.
I have been very pleased to see the response of three of the four (or five?) of our most anti-Trump members here. Even against the other anti-Trumpers, they are standing up and defending this action. That shows me it isn’t always Orange Man Bad for these people, and that there is hope.
Agreed.
I’m not an expert on Iranian internal politics, but about 1/2 of their citizens are tired of the Mullahs. They have protested since 1980 and have been put down. It’s easier for the Mullahs to show their power in foreign ventures rather than fixing problems at home.
The Quote of the Day series is the easiest way to start a fun conversation on Ricochet. There are many open days on the January Signup Sheet, including 2 next week. We even include tips for finding great quotes, so choose your favorite quote and sign up today!
Two things: 1) They just lost their COO. And 2) escalating with us is the best way to guarantee regime change. This is the least honest thing Trump has said about the situation — that he doesn’t want regime change. You know who really doesn’t want regime change? The mullahs. I don’t think they’ll risk it.
Molon Labe.
Please consider something about an oil refinery. Every oil refinery contains vast quantities of flammable liquids and gases under pressure. Lots of process safety goes into making an oil refinery safe from normal mistakes and screw ups. When you attack a refinery, well…
Fuel-air explosions are one of the most devastating attacks outside of a nuclear device. Normally you need a special thermobaric fuel air warhead to get this kind of explosive effect. In an oil refinery, I’d imagine a few grenades or a .50 burst would do the job. They are incredibly soft targets. We could easily turn them to flaming scrap without trouble. There goes millions of dollars of infrastructure in a massive fireball, along with the skilled workforce operating it.
It was actually Phillip II of Macedon the Spartans were talking to, but that is a detail.
Hey, pedants gotta pedant.
Sea,
I think the Churchill quote about Chamberlain applies here.
Obama chose appeasement & dishonor. Trump has put Iran in a box and will crush them if they choose war. Anyone who thinks that there is some other outcome through an infantile idea like “smart diplomacy” is an idiot.
Trump has done all that he could. Twice Iran has committed pure acts of war, in the Gulf and the attack on the Saudi oil fields. Trump used those situations to move Iran deeper into the box, enhancing the coalition and the sanctions. Now Iran can do whatever it will but the tolerance is over. They are going to pay for it. He’ll cut them down from the top and like Mussolini, he’ll let the people of Iran finally put an end to the Mullahs.
Regards,
Jim
Exactly right. I phrased it as this: will Iran go all in on provoking the US? It would mean an existential fight for the Mullahs. All in or all lost. I doubt they would take that gamble.