| | | Correct-a-mundo....
Semantics, yes, but "ordered" (in my mind) sort of implies that the idea originated with Trump.
And that didn't happen.
Spent a few hours researching the opinions and analyses of former intelligence operatives.
Disregarded all the biased, purely political b.s.
Main takeaway is that Trump was "pushed" into this decision (things just didn't add up, based on initial and subsequent comments from Trump and the administration).
The sanctions were (are) working, the Iranian economy sucks.
However, Iranian sponsored terror activity continued to escalate.
Lots of trigger happy people (both republican and democrat) in the intelligence agencies.
So, although Trump preferred to see sanctions eventually bring the Iranians to the negotiating table, he must have been convinced that there was more risk in letting Soleimani's accomplices ratchet up their targets on Americans (dead contractor, U.S. embassy, ...).
Apparently Pompeo was also initially against the strike.
Iran will retaliate, the question is, to what degree, and then, how will the U.S. respond?
Since one of the main objectives is to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb, the hope is that any U.S. retaliation will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.
Iran will always sponsor and promote terrorism, at least in the foreseeable future.
The key is to not allow them to become a nuclear power.
If anyone is thinking, "hey, what about the deal that Iran signed with Obama and nixed by Trump?", I suggest you read Senator Schumer's 2015 press release wherein he itemizes the reasons why it was such a really bad deal (swiss cheese). Schumer urged Obama to re-negotiate the deal, but that advice was ignored. |
|
