4 ms·
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 fabricat
by 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 agoWas 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 agoI’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.