A different world for Iran now

By Art Hyland

The killing of Soleimani had elicited the obligatory negative or cautionary responses from the Left or Left leaning politicians and media.  At the very least, they claimed, we won’t know what kind of retaliatory action Iran might take, but Iran will certainly retaliate.  

As if that concern is any different than before Soleimani’s death.

Although we have now experienced Iran’s initial response  – – about 12 missiles literally pounding sand – – that may not be the extent of their retaliation from an Iranian leadership that has remained anti-America for decades.

Seems to me that it’s to our great advantage that whatever Iran is planning to do, it has to do it without the apparently considerable experience and ruthlessness of Soleimani.  Also, Iran’s field terrorists have to now be rather wary of high pitched sounds getting louder and louder in their vicinity.  If you are having to look over your shoulder after turning every corner, it’s doubtful you will be able to fully concentrate on the mission at hand.  Plus it will be more difficult to maintain control of volunteers who joined to get free meals and a rifle.  Again, that’s good for our side.  

If enough Iranian-backed field leaders are eliminated or dispersed, the combination of reduced momentum in the field by the remaining Soleimani forces and the increased momentum of Iran’s growing internal resistance movement might very well hinder or perhaps cause the downfall of the current regime. 

As for causing Iran to go to full-scale war (a response the Left was so quick to put into headlines), that’s highly unlikely given its financial condition, its internal resistance struggles, and in general its relatively weak military power.  I doubt very much that Russia or China would be willing to reinforce such a weak ally in a war where the U.S. has so much of an advantage to quickly shut down Iran’s ability to fight. 

Of course Iran could decide to cause some terrible deaths by hitting Western airliners or other public sites in Europe, the Mideast, or even in the U.S.  But if they were to be involved directly or indirectly to cause innocent civilian deaths in their zeal to retaliate for a military loss, they would quickly lose whatever moral ground they might have in international mass media, in addition to the devastation Trump might direct.

That we put them on the defensive was a move Iran did not anticipate, and that in itself is good because we are now able to get a clearer picture of what the connections really are and where they are having to change between the now leaderless Quds terrorist forces and the mullah leadership of Iran.  We are forcing Iran to act rather than our having to act upon their initiated decisions.  

President Trump can be said to have become quite a self-taught president, one naturally devoid of the bureaucratic diseases held by so many current politicians and past presidents.  He is much more attuned to understanding what motivates leaders, unencumbered by years of political posturing and its sausage-making culture.  His brief speech outlined his determination to push Iran into a corner but with a back door, using the power of a United States now led by someone willing to use it.