5 ms·

Trump ordered the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds force, earlier this year. So I’m not sure that this argument applies to Iran. http

Trump ordered the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds force, earlier this year. So I’m not sure that this argument applies to Iran. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-attack.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-s...

dkarl 6y ago
Trump's justification was that Suleimani was planning attacks against US targets, which is a pretty high bar for intervention (unless it was a complete fabrication, which doesn't seem likely.) Any other Democratic or Republican administration would have identified multiple opportunities/obligations per year to improve some situation in the world by military intervention, and counted themselves moderate if they only committed to one or two in four years. Biden's Secretary of State pick, for example, believes we were wrong not to escalate our involvement in Syria until we turned the tide.
- stunt 6y ago
  Was it really? That guy was leading one of the largest and the most effective ground forces against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. His troops had contact with the U.S. and Russia for air support. I wouldn't be surprised if one of U.S. regional allies that isn't happy about the situation in Iraq and Syria gave U.S. some made up intelligence about an attack to provoke U.S. against him. "BBC: Qasem Soleimani: Why his killing is good news for IS jihadists" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51021861 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51021861
- el_benhameen 6y ago
  I’m not necessarily arguing with any of that. But your assertion was that a Biden administration would be more likely to get militarily involved in Iran, and I don’t think the case for that argument is obvious. Biden wants to rejoin the nuclear agreement, while Trump has actually engaged in a violent confrontation with the country.

dkarl 6y ago

Trump's justification was that Suleimani was planning attacks against US targets, which is a pretty high bar for intervention (unless it was a complete fabrication, which doesn't seem likely.) Any other Democratic or Republican administration would have identified multiple opportunities/obligations per year to improve some situation in the world by military intervention, and counted themselves moderate if they only committed to one or two in four years. Biden's Secretary of State pick, for example, believes we were wrong not to escalate our involvement in Syria until we turned the tide.

stunt 6y ago
Was it really? That guy was leading one of the largest and the most effective ground forces against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. His troops had contact with the U.S. and Russia for air support. I wouldn't be surprised if one of U.S. regional allies that isn't happy about the situation in Iraq and Syria gave U.S. some made up intelligence about an attack to provoke U.S. against him. "BBC: Qasem Soleimani: Why his killing is good news for IS jihadists" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51021861 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51021861
el_benhameen 6y ago
I’m not necessarily arguing with any of that. But your assertion was that a Biden administration would be more likely to get militarily involved in Iran, and I don’t think the case for that argument is obvious. Biden wants to rejoin the nuclear agreement, while Trump has actually engaged in a violent confrontation with the country.