Article Link
Following Trump's announcement that the United States would back down given that Iran appears to be "standing down," (article here) Iran as a whole has been providing statements about vengeance as well as peace. The U.S. order of a drone strike on Iran killed Iranian leader Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, and Iran retaliated with a missile strike on two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. troops. However, it seemed to be more of an act of warning than one looking to kill, as no troops were killed and Iran admitted that the strike was not intended to kill anyone. However, more radical threats were delivered from the Revolutionary Guards Corps as well as much of the general public. However, the Iranian government still warns the United States against making any further mistakes, suggesting that they may be on their last straw. This period of high tension and mixed feelings about war is similar to the American situation in the 1950s and 1960s, where the public sentiment and government was trying to decide whether or not to take action. I think Iran made the right decision to limit the escalation of the situation, as the current situation is easier to handle than one where both parties are aggravated. Being placed in a position with strong opposing public opinion but keeping the general welfare of the public in consideration is one that I think deserves respect.
1) Do you think that Iran made the right decision with their retaliatory strike not killing any U.S. troops?
1) Do you think the missile strike on U.S. troops was a justified retaliatory attack in general? If not, what if the situation was reversed?
2) How do you think the public and Revolutionary Guards Corps will react given that their government has has partially rendered their threats as having no backing?
I think Iran did make the right decision to not try to kill any US soldiers in their retaliatory strike because while it doesn’t really build Iran’s perceived strength, it does emphasize their presence in the region and it provides some sort of response without really escalating things. The missile strikes on the Iraqi bases were a good way to show the Iranian public that their government is not weak, but to escalate the conflict would be a mistake for Iran given the comparative strength and resources of the two opposing countries. I think Iran’s retaliation was expected because it’s not like they can do nothing in response, and I think it’s good that they didn’t decide to make their response all that drastic because it keeps the conflict in the region under control (for now).
ReplyDeleteOverall, I do think that Iran made a good choice not killing any U.S soldiers, as doing so would arouse fierce backlash from the U.S and further escalate the situation, which would not look too good for Iran. It indeed is justified, being that the U.S killed one of their top leaders and multiple soldiers that were defending him. I think the RGC will still act as normal since they are not necessarily dependent on the government or part of it. It may attempt to stage more anti-US demonstration or even launch terrorist attacks locally. Overall, It is highly fortunate that Iran did not escalate the current situation.
ReplyDeleteI think Iran's response to the drone strike that killed leader Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was smart. They could have lashed out and killed american troops during the retaliatory strikes but by preventing deaths they are also suggesting that they dont want war. Iran seems to be trying to remind the U.S. that if conflicts continue, innocent lives will be lost. If situations were flipped I feel like the U.S. would have responded with something more violent rather than just a warning especially based on our presidents tendencies. In my opinion the public response is completely valid and they have the right to feel angered by the death of their leader. It makes sense that they want their government to protect them during this time.
ReplyDeleteI think Iran's response to the drone strike that killed leader Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was smart. They could have lashed out and killed american troops during the retaliatory strikes but by preventing deaths they are also suggesting that they dont want war. Iran seems to be trying to remind the U.S. that if conflicts continue, innocent lives will be lost. If situations were flipped I feel like the U.S. would have responded with something more violent rather than just a warning especially based on our presidents tendencies. In my opinion the public response is completely valid and they have the right to feel angered by the death of their leader. It makes sense that they want their government to protect them during this time.
ReplyDeleteI think Iran made a reasonable decision with their retaliatory strike. First of all, it was a symbolic gesture that quelled the anger of tens of millions of Iranian citizens to some extent. Furthermore, it sent a message of Iran's military preparedness without provoking war, which would be a lost cause for the nation. However, as a reaction to the U.S. strike, the Revolutionary Guards Corps and other Iranian radical groups might target American allies in proxy wars in Iraq and Syria, prolonging the bitter conflict in the Middle East. If Iran killed an American general instead, the U.S. would probably react offensively instead of defensively, given the relative strength of our nation's military (and our president's temperament).
ReplyDeleteI think this is the best possible move for Iran. They satisfy some of their desire for revenge, without starting a full war with the US. As a country of less military might than the US, it is unreasonable to start a conflict that they surely will end up on the losing side of. However, the cries for revenge echo throughout Iran at the death of General Suleimani needed to be addressed and this was the right way to do it. The only problem is that the Iranian people are still angry. Iran should do their best to quell the anger of its people.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteYes, Iran's decision was reasonable. Without harming any American soldiers, Iran proved to their people and our nation that they're also not a force to be reckoned with, but also, played it safe by not escalating the situation that many called "the beginning of WWIII." As for the US, although Trump has given the reasoning of why he decided to take out Suleimani, the House and the Senate a very much split regarding if it was a good choice or not, to the point where the House passed the "War Powers Resolution." The public also seems to be split over the decision... I mean... political polarization... Anyways, it can't be denied that Americans were a little tense over the idea of a possible world war, it even was trending on Twitter for two days.
I agree with everyone that Iran’s retaliation strike was reasonable, justified, and smart. The missile strikes were a good way for Iranian people to see that their government is doing something about the death of their leader. The fact that there were no U.S. or Iraqi casualties in the strike helps de-escalate the situation a little as well. Trump said that because of this Iran appears to be standing down. However, I think that any kind of ballistic missile strike is still a threat and also a way to limit escalation. It is unknown how the U.S.-Iranian tensions will end up since Iranian officials vowed for revenge but at the same time said that their strike were not intended to kill anyone. Overall, Iran’s retaliation strike was definitely expected since Iranian people are angry during a death of an important figure in their country.
ReplyDeleteking an attack, they do manage to gain some vengeance while also refraining from causing tensions to become extremely heightened. Overall, there are clearly other ways in which the Iranian government could have responded to this situation that would have been far more severe and fatal than the way in which they actually chose to handle this; therefore, I believe that their missile strike was most likely one of the better ways to deal with this situation. Given the circumstances any violent response -- this being the missile strike -- is bound to upset some people, further resulting in tension to grow amongst the U.S. and Iran. However, it was expected for Iran to respond in some form; overall I believe at this point in time, all should focus on limiting and preventing more tension from building between the two sides.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Iran's retaliation was morally justified, as it demonstrates their willingness to protect their country. Since no U.S. soldiers suffered casualties in the event of the attack, tensions within the American government will subside. Whether or not the Iranian government launched the missiles with intent of having American soldiers to sustain casualties, there is clear evidence that they won't tolerate another attack. If they ended up killing U.S. soldiers, then I believe that foreign relations of the U.S. and Iran will only worsen, most likely resulting in further conflicts and an increase in intensity. In the end, a positive outcome was achieved in which both the U.S. and Iran have had a verbal agreement to not follow up with any further attacks, ultimately de-escalating a potentially larger conflict.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Iran made the right choice in their relatively "harmless" retaliatory strike on United States grounds as it acted as a warning. Rather than killing US troops, Iran evidently proved that if desired, they would be able to strike the US and cause major harm. Furthermore, I do not think that the retaliatory strike against the United States troop was justified as there are methods other than escalating the already existing violence which could help solve these issues. However on the other hand, I feel that if Iran had initiated the situation, similar to how the US did in their initial strike, the United States may have retaliated as well - maybe not in the same manner but I think they would have responded in a similar way. In terms of the Revolutionary Guards Corps and public's reaction to threats having no backing, they may become angry and frustrated as to why this situation is going on.
ReplyDeleteI think that Iran was lucky that no one died, because there have been recent reports following the Trump administration's assurances of no casualties that 11 US troops were in fact injured from the strike. Putting myself in Iran's shoes, I can see why their attack was justified; their anger was understandable. I am not sure what the US government would have done if US troops were killed because Trump does not shy away from direct military retaliation but at the same time, the American people do not want another war.
ReplyDeleteI think that the U.S. did not make the right choice in attacking Iran in general. Even if Iran was responsible for terrorist attacks, such an unprovoked attack on a prominent Iranian leader would increase tensions between the U.S. and Iran for no reason. The timing of the attack was especially poor as Iran has not launched any strikes against the U.S. in the recent past. This makes Trump's strike on Iranian soil look random and unprovoked. Retaliation can only come in response to an attack, and without a memorable act that recently happened, Trump will not have the support of the Ameican people. Iran's response was calculated well as it both asserted Iranian dominance while not harming any Americans in the process, which could have caused reason for war.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Iran made the right decision in their retaliatory strike towards the U.S. base. It was a measured response to a flagrant abuse of power and a reckless decision to drone strike Soleimani by President Trump. Iran knew that the strike would likely produce no U.S. casualties due to the time of day of the strike and messages by the Iranian government. Their goal was to send a message: we do not want to go to war, but we will if we have to. They knew that escalating the situation when it is not necessary could result in an all-out war with a military superpower, so it is best to reach a peaceful resolution if possible. Due to this calculated response, I believe that Trump has to back down from Iran for risk of losing more popularity among the American people. If he would go to war now, nobody would support it and it would be the ultimate stain on his time in office.
ReplyDelete