I agree with Morgoth.
The American Empire doesn’t have any unifying national heroes like Qasem Soleimani that the Iranians could assassinate in retaliation. A generation of neoliberalism has eroded and fragmented our common culture. The closest thing to an American hero would be a Hollywood actor like Tom Hanks or Clint Eastwood but these seem like unlikely targets.
In light of this, it is more likely that Iran would have to choose some kind of symbolic target like the Twin Towers that al-Qaeda took out on 9/11. The most obvious symbols of American nationalism that come to mind are the Statue of Liberty or Mount Rushmore but attacking inanimate objects would only enrage Americans and wouldn’t really be an eye for an eye. It is also likely that security will be increased at these historic sites on American soil and there are so few of these that it would be hard to do. It would basically be a propaganda video.
The Super Bowl is coming in February. What would be the international impact of blowing up the Super Bowl though? It would horrify the world. The Iranians have already seemed to rule this out because they don’t want to be seen as striking the American people which wouldn’t play well on the international stage. They won’t attack soft targets like a McDonald’s or a Wal-Mart like ISIS would do. Therefore, the most probable target and the easiest target for Iran to strike would be an American ship or military base somewhere in the Middle East.
Americans will rally around “the troops” though. If Iran killed dozens or hundreds of American troops in a strike, this also wouldn’t be a proportional response. The most probable target will be an American general in CENTCOM stationed in the Middle East. It might be too hard to take out a general though so an attack on a ship or base seems likely. Is it really in Iran’s interest to order a strike that kills “the troops” and sets off a chain of events that spirals out of control? Being destroyed by an American war for the benefit of Israel wouldn’t be proportional. It would be suicidal and would play into the hands of the people responsible for this.
What would happen if Iran assassinated Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer or Bernard Marcus? This would be striking at the root cause of the entire conflict because it is the donations of these three Jewish billionaires to Trump that has set in motion this chain of events. It wouldn’t be nearly as polarizing or unifying. You would think that Adelson, Marcus and Singer’s security is much weaker than a national historic site like the Statue of Liberty.
Would Trump be able to convince the American people to go to war with Iran over a terrorist attack on Sheldon Adelson or his other donors? Iran is going to kill someone in response to this and publicly take credit for it. Who will it be? That’s the only question. The Iranians have publicly said their goal is vengeance for Soleimani’s and deterrence.
The United States is the target of deterrence. How do you deter the United States? You can only do that by raising the cost of American aggression to those who are ultimately responsible for it. That’s not your run of the mill American soldier who is just an expendable pawn to our policymakers but highly valuable to the American people. The logic leads in one direction.
Note: I AM NOT ADVOCATING ASSASSINATING ANYONE. I’m only speculating about the form the Iranian response to killing Soleimani could take. Iran is notorious for these types of assassinations. They have waited years to do this in the past.
Is singer alive,the news said he was dead one year ago.(S. America)
We will soon be an empire without any white heroes. Just read in VDare today about the Charlottesville city council voting to take more statues of white men down. Removing Lewis and Clark because the Indian maiden that accompanied them on their trip appeared on the monument in what the black mayor considered a degrading kneeling position.
We don’t have any WHITE CHRISTIAN heroes cause none of the white nationalist news outlets are Christian. Empty souls have no wisdom and strategy. Only random thoughts and opinions influenced by whatever evil spirits fancy entering into them … since they have NO spiritual protection.
Yup. And when the mod of this forum, can write this sentence:
“In light of this, it is more likely that Iran would have to choose some kind of symbolic target like the Twin Towers that al-Qaeda took out on 9/11. ”
Really? Al-Queda? What about the dancing Israelis? What about the JEWS?!?!?
Just after a simple WIKI search on ‘Israel did 9/11’…….
The BEST target for the Iranians would be a Dem, despised by White JewOP’ers. Some like Pelosi – or Pelosi specifically. Key Dems are HATED. Pelosi would be the best target. The Elite would freak if they got some-one like her…..but Middle Murkins would be…surprised….they might be saying interesting things…..
Not advocating. Jess sayin’…
First rule of warfare: dont do what your Enemy wants you to do.
Iran already won this exchange, why spoil it?
Khameini isnt rational, though. And I’m not just saying that. He really doesnt give a heck about worldly consequences.
You wrote: ” . . . Americans will rally around “the troops” though. . . “ Yes, until the U.S. Government says: “Line up for conscription, we need more troops, now!” That is the crossing of the Rubicon, when the cheering for war on the way to Wal-Mart for other people to fight ends, when the Government looks for the MAGA types to answer the call. This is the Achilles’ heel of the Empire.
An anti-war movement based upon opposition to conscription is the answer to Leviathan, the welfare/warfare, multi-cult, diverse, Weimerica. An anti-war movement based upon opposition to conscription, not opposition to “the troops” or anything else would be broadly popular attracting young and old, left and right and would be effective in shutting down the war effort. Right now the military is overextended. Another war with its attendant economic chaos will require conscription or ending the war.
The scumbag politicians are petrified of losing an election by having to choose between mass, popular, opposition to conscription or supporting “our greatest ally”. Opposition to conscription would force the scumbags in Congress to choose. The precedent for this is the Vietnam war when popular mobilization against the war paralleled the increasing demands of conscription to fight the Vietnam war, a war which John Bolton, Rush, GWB II, DJT and a cast of millions scrupulously avoided by hook or crook.
Right now conscription isn’t a catalyst for an anti-war movement because the military is still voluntary. Queries about conscription have been trending on Google and Twitter and the Selective Service’s website crashed because of heavy traffic, according to Drudge. I don’t think those are signs of support for war, they are signs of fear. Anyone who wants to go to war now can sign up, maybe get a bonus, too.
Excellent post, Mr. 12AX7!
Here we have Don Jr. supporting his daddy’s war effort:
It’s obvious DJT Jr. never got within a million miles of military service, just like his old man. Armchair warriors are the worst, gloating over death and destruction.
It would be odd to hear, (again) ‘Hell no, we won’t go!’ coming from College Campuses. Except this time (unlike in the ’60’s) Basic Training might make MEN out of some of these snowflakes (God, I sound like my uncle)…..
Morgoth is wrong, America has one hero, internationally recognized, too. Ronald McDonald with his quarter pounder.
Unironically agree, and endorse!
It’s an election year. When is the convention of the Republican Jewish Coalition?
Oh come on. How did al-Qaeda take out World Trade Center building 7?
Jason Jorjani on Red Ice gave the best breakdown and predictions about the Iran situation. He knows more than anyone the actual situation and he knows the Iranian opposition having actually worked with them for years.
When dealing with Civgnats always be prepared to eat you HOLY COW! soup.