The Iranian Military—No Guts, No Glory: Or The Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight
Last week the United States killed the Iranian General Qassem Soleimani with an American drone strike just north of Baghdad. The strike was so lethal that the general’s remains had to be picked up piece by piece. It was a fitting end for someone who was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people, including 608 Americans. He was a murderer and a terrorist, and he got just what he deserved.
I have never considered myself to be a ghoulish person but in the case of General Soleimani I’ve decided to make an exception. Wouldn’t it be nice if we were able to put the General back together and revive him for the sole purpose of killing him again? Wouldn’t it be fantastic if we were able to repeat this process 608 times, once for every American killed by this low-life son of a bitch?
General Soleimani was the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force. This group was designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and other countries as well. As the leader of this terrorist organization he, by definition, is a terrorist. As such, he was a high value target and therefore, fair game. Just because he wore the uniform of the Iranian military and had the rank of general does not dismiss the fact that he was a terrorist.
During the Obama Administration, I recall two high-profile assassinations conducted by our military on the orders of President Obama. The first one was the killing of Osama bin Laden. I don’t know of anyone, including Republicans, who are mourning the death of this terrorist or questioning President Obama’s decision to take him out.
The other assassination, which I would characterize more as an execution, would be the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen. Al-Awlaki was just one of several American citizens who were unceremoniously terminated by the American military. These American citizens were deprived of their lives by the US government, without the due process guaranteed to them by the US constitution. Al-Awlaki was killed in 2011 by an American drone strike. At the time I don’t recall any whining or crying from any sniveling Democrat hypocrites complaining about these deaths—even though it appears that they were unconstitutional. Yet, these people have the temerity to say that President Trump’s decision to take out General Soleimani was reckless and that it was necessary for him to seek Congressional approval before taking such an action. What hypocrites.
Beyond being a uniformed general in the Iranian military, General Soleimani was the main facilitator of terrorist proxy groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and the Shiite militias in Iraq. These groups were proxy fighters for the country of Iran. Soleimani was responsible for recruiting these fighters, as well as training, arming, and paying them. In short, he owned these people and they did his bidding.
Soleimani gave these proxies the means to create political unrest and to become lethal. As a result, tens of thousands of people, mostly Muslims, were killed. These deaths occurred in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and as far away as South America. This man was an exporter of terrorism worldwide and his death should be considered a gift from America to rest of the world. You’re welcome.
Demonstrators burn the US and British flags during protests in Tehran
So why all this whining and crying about WW3? The short answer is that it is nothing more than political rhetoric and posturing on the part of the Democrat presidential candidates and other Democrats. However, since the media is hanging on to every precious word uttered by these candidates, they will continue to say or do anything that will get them in front of a camera for airtime on TV.
The Iranian response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani was purposely measured. They fired fifteen ballistic missiles (four of which failed) at two Iraqi military bases where American military personnel were being housed. The other eleven missiles landed on the Iraqi bases, causing roughly thirty casualties. Most of the injured were treated and returned to duty. Those with more serious injuries are being kept under observation. None of the injuries were considered to be life threatening.
It is my opinion that the Iranians never had any intention of killing or injuring any American personnel. Just recently this was confirmed by the Iranian foreign minister. You can arrive at two conclusions from this. Number one is that the Iranians had no wish to escalate the situation. That is a good thing for both parties. Secondly, if their intent was to not kill any American personnel, they may want to revise their procedures when picking their targets. He came very close to escalating this confrontation to out of control. For them to say that they were not trying to hit any American personnel rings hollow, especially when you consider that they injured over thirty personnel.
Based on recent history, the Iranians have been very selective in picking targets. They seem to choose targets that either will not shoot back or do not have the capability of shooting back. This conclusion was based on recent Iranian missile attacks in and around the Persian Gulf.
For example, they had absolutely no problem hitting two unarmed US drones flying in international airspace above the Persian Gulf. These unarmed drones were incapable of returning fire and were therefore not a threat to retaliate. The Iranian military are willing to attack these types of targets.
The Iranians also attacked oil fields in Saudi Arabia. This attack was designed to hurt the oil production of Saudi Arabia and to raise the price of oil on the world market. The attack had no significant long-term effect on Saudi oil production and had a very minor impact on the worldwide price of oil. Here again, this is exactly the type of unarmed adversary that the Iranians are willing to take on. Obviously, oil fields are also unable to fight back.
The Iranians have shown their unrivaled bravery when it comes to burning, stomping on, and otherwise mutilating the American flag. This shows, in no uncertain terms, that the Iranian military and the Iranian people as a whole are unsurpassed when confronting unarmed, inanimate objects.
Another example of the type of target that shows the unparalleled bravery of the Iranian military is their ability to hijack unarmed merchant ships at sea. I am in awe of the awesome courage it must take to board an unarmed freighter manned by unarmed merchant seamen. I am unable to express in words how proud the Iranian people must be of their brave and courageous military that is able to attack only unarmed opponents.
The Iranian military has shown no willingness to attack or confront anyone or anything with the capability of returning fire. This would be especially true of the US military. It is my belief that this was the reason they decided to not fire a second spread of missiles at the Al-Assad military base. It is quite evident to me that Iran wants no part of a hot war with the US military.
These little forays of the Iranian military produce headlines in Western media. They give the Iranian government the opportunity to bluster and sabre rattle for the benefit of their citizens. That, however, is the only benefit the Iranians will ever get from this cowardly behavior.
According to Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War, when faced with an opponent of superior strength, one should evade that opponent. In this case, one could say to the Iranians that it would be wise to heed the advice of Sun Tzu. The government of Iran would be wise to avoid any escalation of military operations with the United States.
It has become quite evident to me that, when confronted with an adversary capable of fighting back, the Iranian military is not willing to engage. This would be true not only when dealing with a country with the military strength of the US, but even with a country the size of Israel. Rather than confront Israel on its own, the government of Iran uses proxies to do its fighting for them. Some would describe Iran’s reluctance to fight armed opponents as having a confidence problem. Other people would put it more bluntly by saying that the Iranians just don’t have the stomach to face an armed opponent. Only the Iranians know for sure.
The costs that the country of Iran would incur, both militarily and financially, if they were to ever confront the US militarily would be devastating. It would almost be suicidal. In a matter of hours we could take out their airfields, oil fields and refineries, defensive missile capability, and power plants. We could do all this from the air and from our ships at sea without ever putting American boots on the ground. I’m not going to say that the US would walk away unscathed, but we would walk away. Iran’s ability to defend itself after an American attack would be substantially reduced. This is why Iran wants no part of a military confrontation with the US. This is a prime example of what peace through strength is all about.
President Trump has made it crystal clear that the “red line” in this disagreement, at least as far as the US is concerned, is that the killing of any American military personnel—or any American for that matter—will not be tolerated. It is a line that Iran should not cross. That said, it is my contention that the Iranian military exercised restraint when aiming their missiles. This restraint was the result of the American drone strike on General Soleimani. When the general was killed it became apparent to the Iranians that the gloves had come off. Their reluctance to conduct further attacks against American personnel was actually precipitated by the very real fear of an American military reprisal. President Trump has put the fear of God into the Iranian military.
Taking this scenario one step further, why would a country like Iran, who supposedly has a reasonably good military, fire fifteen missiles at Iraqi military bases that were housing American military personnel, and then stand down? They did this for two reasons. Reason number one was that they responded to the “US aggression” which allowed them to save face with their citizens. Secondly, it is my opinion that the Iranians didn’t want to launch another spread of missiles and take a chance that Americans might be killed.
Just to be clear, if an accident similar to the one that downed the Ukrainian airliner, killing all 176 people on board, were to have killed any Americans, I doubt that the Iranian military, or those running the government, could run far enough or fast enough to escape the wrath of President Trump and the US military.
It is also worth mentioning at this point that just over thirty years ago the United States and Iran engaged in a shooting war in the Persian Gulf. When it was over, which by the way didn’t take long, six Iranians vessels had either gone to the bottom or had suffered significant damage. The US also destroyed two Iranian oil platforms, which, in addition to drilling for oil, were also being used as a base to lay mines in the gulf.
During the battle, the Iranians ordered four American-made F-4 Phantoms to take off from one of their airfields. After a very short flight, those fighters were ordered to return to base without engaging. This was just another example of the Iranian military’s reluctance to engage an armed adversary.
As I mentioned above, if a confrontation between the US and Iran were to occur, the US military could degrade Iran’s ability to wage war in a matter of a few hours. We could also have a severe impact on their ability to generate revenue. War is an expensive business and, since oil is their main source of income, hitting their oil fields and refineries would virtually put them out of business. This would result in very quick end to any confrontation.
It is now thirty years later and not a lot has changed. If there were to be further military confrontations between our two countries the results would most likely be the same. The good news is that Iran knows this and, at least for the time being, has decided to stand down. This is a welcome outcome for both sides.
