Iraq/Iran Megathread - Latest: U.S. to close Baghdad embassy

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/farnazfassihi/status/1213832350045523968

[Fuzzy Bear]

All in all, I support the action.  Solemani wasn't in Iran when he was killed; he was in a foreign country where we had an embassy, where he was acting illegally according to Iraqi law and International Law.  I have no problem with killing people who launch attacks on civilians.  I also have no problem with a policy that results in the Solemanis of the World have real fear of being taken out.  On a personal, I'm happy that Solemani is dead, and not some anonymous grunt who was just a dupe or a mercenary.

Trump has said he is not for "Regime Change" and has re-emphasized that.  Of course, after he says this, the de-frocked John Bolton takes to Twitter, when he should have just shut up.  Bolton was the most cringeworthy appointment Trump made, and the one I was happy to see leave.  But Bolton is a symptom of what I find in Trump's Administration that needs to be corrected.

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

[Cinemark]

https://twitter.com/farnazfassihi/status/1213832350045523968

The question then becomes: What happens now?

[Badger]

This! This is what I wanted in 2016. This is why I wanted a conservative President! Y'all can complain all you want, but I love it! I've always hated international law. I hate the UN. I hate how sensitive we are -- as if foreign monuments matter more than American lives? If Trump sends those 52 sites to high heaven, I'll cheer him all the way along: I can't wait to vote for him in 2020!!!

You also hate poor people and ignorantly consider them Moochers. Why should we take anything you say seriously about foreign policy either?

That said, I heartily encourage you to enlist in the military now. If you believe this strongly in our goal surely you will be willing to put yourself on the line rather than sending mostly poor and working class kids out to do your and Trump's dirty work? Or do you instead plan to just sit back and limit your contributions to being an internet Warrior and putting a magnetic Yellow Ribbon on the back of your car?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

All in all, I support the action.  Solemani wasn't in Iran when he was killed; he was in a foreign country where we had an embassy, where he was acting illegally according to Iraqi law and International Law.  I have no problem with killing people who launch attacks on civilians.  I also have no problem with a policy that results in the Solemanis of the World have real fear of being taken out.  On a personal, I'm happy that Solemani is dead, and not some anonymous grunt who was just a dupe or a mercenary.

Trump has said he is not for "Regime Change" and has re-emphasized that.  Of course, after he says this, the de-frocked John Bolton takes to Twitter, when he should have just shut up.  Bolton was the most cringeworthy appointment Trump made, and the one I was happy to see leave.  But Bolton is a symptom of what I find in Trump's Administration that needs to be corrected.

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

Can't say I disagree with much of this. This hits nail on head.

[dead0man]

The question then becomes: What happens now?

we leave, finally.....or we go to war with Iraq too I guess.  Tough to say with so many irrational actors who think they are holding a better hand than they really are dealing with layers of international complexity not seen in centuries of which most of them are fully incapable of handling.  There are no Bismarks here, there are no Churchills.  We got a council of religious fanatics in Iran, Iraq is three countries trying to wear one hat, we got an ex-spook and a handful of oligarchs sitting on top of thousands of nukes and a trillion barrels of oil, a dictator in all but name who clearly hates the west as a NATO ally right square in the middle of it all, a little too conservative for my liking people running Israel who've been playing "missiles" again with the terrorists in Gaza lately, Egypt is still a power keg with at least 4 fuses ready to be lit and the rest of N.Africa is worse (with some exceptions), and there are a half dozen or so other unresolved hot issues in the area that I'm not even going to mention 'cause this sh**t is long and depressing enough already, and the leader of the free world is a mentally deficient, narcissistic reality TV show star, who is no doubt exhausted and angry playing with the most powerful tools man has ever created.


and I'm the optimist in the room!





(thankfully he's not a toddler with an UZI, there are people and practices between him and the actual tools who don't want to see WWIII happen because Trump had a tantrum one day after someone said something mean to him)

[Badger]

Hold on, now, let's not wish death on people that disagree with us politically.  Trump voters drive me up the wall sometimes, but I certainly don't want them to be killed by a foreign power.  

The fact that you think the average Trump supporter is equal to the KKK is ignorant in every way possible and actually shows you are more intolerant than the average Trump supporter.

1960s George Wallace was far far more racist than Trump


By the way I know many Trump supporters and many of them are my friends and they are all good people and while I disagree with their opinions on Trump, voting for him doesnt make them bad people.

That's the sad thing about Trump supporters, even that share, which is frankly debatable whether or not it's a majority versus a very large minority, who aren't racist themselves. It includes members of my own family whom I love. While they may not be racist, or traitors, or corrupt individuals themselves, they're more than willing to support a President Who clearly is. When it comes to running the government of our country, they're willing to put their basic common sense and even personal integrity on the sidelines 2 support someone as president who lacks either. In short, it is heartbreaking that they will support a racist incompetent boorish vicious authoritarian corrupt anti-democratic president, because they would rather have that in the white house then a liberal Democrat.

In short, even if maybe half ish of trump supporters aren't racist, orally typical Suburban racist light, 100% of them choose party over country.

[Omega21]

https://twitter.com/farnazfassihi/status/1213832350045523968

Best thing to happen for Iraq in a long time.

Hope the people will soon regain their independence and sovereignty.

[Badger]

Fwiw here's my take, which I know you've all been breathlessly awaiting.

It is perfectly acceptable to drone strike/ assassinate an individual, whether you label them a general, terrorist, whatever, who is about to cause imminent harm to numbers of American troops and / or civilians. The deceased SOB falls in the category of an enemy combatant.

However, the question is whether or not it was a properly calculated and measured risk that isn't going to bite America in the ass and cause us more blood in the long run. I don't know the answer to that question yet. However, several aspects of the Trump Administration in general, based entirely on empirical evidence and historical fact, give me serious serious reservations.

One, Trump and his administration are loaded with War Hawks, including Trump himself, who have wanted any excuse fathomable to cause a serious military conflict, if not outright war, with Iran from day one. Trump himself has proven himself Beyond any shadow of a doubt to be a narcissistic sociopath, and his tweets indicate he would love nothing more than to feel himself in and the role of some modern day Cesar / Truman / Reagan, and doesn't care which working class families can't use bone spurs as a medical excuse for his own vainglory.

2,, Trump and his administration have proven themselves, even by the standards of politicians, and even politicians trying to do doublespeak to justify belligerent foreign policy, to be complete and absolute Liars. Literally nothing Trump says even by those standards, on any subject whatsoever, can be deemed true. If he says it's sunny out, one needs to check the window to make sure. And it'll probably be raining. If we learned anything from the whole Saddam having an arsenal of weapons of mass destructions debacle leading us into the Iraq War, then we should readily believe that Trump is Administration will make that look like a little white lie in order to achieve their goals in paragraph one above. Ergo, again based on empirical history and practice, absolutely nothing whatsoever uttered by Trump or his administration can be deemed even half-truth for until verified by an independent source. And I repeat, absolutely nothing. Anyone who disputes his complete absence of veracity has been living in a cave 4 for 5 years now, or is a complete cultist whom need not be interacted with.

Three. In terms of trying to measure the pros and cons of this decision, on any subject in any situation, the Trump Administration cannot be trusted to get anything right. They have proven themselves not just incompetent, but a raging dumpster fire on every single aspect of anything they try, be it domestic policy, foreign policy, simple day to Day management of the White House and government Administration, or just simple matters of presidential judgment like not getting into a Twitter flame War with sixteen-year-olds or gold star parents who oppose your politics. Simply put, it is an empirical fact that Trump and his family / cronies cannot be entrusted to plan picnic without s******* the bed. Ergo, it stands to reason that if the Trump Administration made the correct call here, it is not only mere happenstance, but according to their MO, statistically unlikely at best.

tl;dr version: I'm not willing to 100% say this was the wrong move yet, but I'm certainly not willing to say it was the right move until it is verified or at least indicated by an independent trustworthy source. I. E. Not according to whatever the mango Mussolini and his incompetent crime organization claim.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://twitter.com/AmirAminiMD/status/1213828930458804224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

For anybody who was under the impression that the Iranians mourning Soleimani were in the minority or being blown out of proportion by the media

[Dr. Arch]

[7,052,770]

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

There is no "HIS" philosophy. Donald Trump doesn't know or care enough about anything to have a consistent worldview. Everything he does is just following whatever the last person who had his ear suggested.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Fwiw here's my take, which I know you've all been breathlessly awaiting.

It is perfectly acceptable to drone strike/ assassinate an individual, whether you label them a general, terrorist, whatever, who is about to cause imminent harm to numbers of American troops and / or civilians. The deceased SOB falls in the category of an enemy combatant.

However, the question is whether or not it was a properly calculated and measured risk that isn't going to bite America in the ass and cause us more blood in the long run. I don't know the answer to that question yet. However, several aspects of the Trump Administration in general, based entirely on empirical evidence and historical fact, give me serious serious reservations.

One, Trump and his administration are loaded with War Hawks, including Trump himself, who have wanted any excuse fathomable to cause a serious military conflict, if not outright war, with Iran from day one. Trump himself has proven himself Beyond any shadow of a doubt to be a narcissistic sociopath, and his tweets indicate he would love nothing more than to feel himself in and the role of some modern day Cesar / Truman / Reagan, and doesn't care which working class families can't use bone spurs as a medical excuse for his own vainglory.

2,, Trump and his administration have proven themselves, even by the standards of politicians, and even politicians trying to do doublespeak to justify belligerent foreign policy, to be complete and absolute Liars. Literally nothing Trump says even by those standards, on any subject whatsoever, can be deemed true. If he says it's sunny out, one needs to check the window to make sure. And it'll probably be raining. If we learned anything from the whole Saddam having an arsenal of weapons of mass destructions debacle leading us into the Iraq War, then we should readily believe that Trump is Administration will make that look like a little white lie in order to achieve their goals in paragraph one above. Ergo, again based on empirical history and practice, absolutely nothing whatsoever uttered by Trump or his administration can be deemed even half-truth for until verified by an independent source. And I repeat, absolutely nothing. Anyone who disputes his complete absence of veracity has been living in a cave 4 for 5 years now, or is a complete cultist whom need not be interacted with.

Three. In terms of trying to measure the pros and cons of this decision, on any subject in any situation, the Trump Administration cannot be trusted to get anything right. They have proven themselves not just incompetent, but a raging dumpster fire on every single aspect of anything they try, be it domestic policy, foreign policy, simple day to Day management of the White House and government Administration, or just simple matters of presidential judgment like not getting into a Twitter flame War with sixteen-year-olds or gold star parents who oppose your politics. Simply put, it is an empirical fact that Trump and his family / cronies cannot be entrusted to plan picnic without s******* the bed. Ergo, it stands to reason that if the Trump Administration made the correct call here, it is not only mere happenstance, but according to their MO, statistically unlikely at best.

tl;dr version: I'm not willing to 100% say this was the wrong move yet, but I'm certainly not willing to say it was the right move until it is verified or at least indicated by an independent trustworthy source. I. E. Not according to whatever the mango Mussolini and his incompetent crime organization claim.

To your third point, Badger: what troubles me as to whether or not Trump made the correct call here is the response.  The administration is all over the place.  

-- "They started it.  We ended it.  There will be hell to pay if they respond."

-- "Maybe they will respond.  We're not worried though.  Iraqis and Iranians alike are actually rejoicing at Soleimani's demise."  

-- "They may not realize it now, but we just saved them.  They WILL thank us later.  This was as much a humanitarian effort as anything."  

-- "Our mission was to get the troops out of the Middle East.  It's up to the Iranians and the Iraqis to take the reins."  

And so on and so forth.  

Look, I'm in the same boat where I'm not certain if this was the correct move or not.  But doing my absolute best to put aside my personal dislike for Trump and his administration, I'm just having a hard time trusting the President right now.  And as an American, that disturbs me more than anything -- having a hard time trusting the Commander-in-Chief in the midst of a delicate and uncertain situation involving another volatile (and untrustworthy) party.  

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

There is no "HIS" philosophy. Donald Trump doesn't know or care enough about anything to have a consistent worldview. Everything he does is just following whatever the last person who had his ear suggested.

I'm pretty convinced that most of Donald Trump's questions in the Oval Office to his advisors and cabinet start with "why can't we just...?"

"Why can't we just build a wall? Illegal immigration is a problem.  A wall will keep people out."  

"Why can't we just cut taxes? People hate paying taxes!"

"This Soleimani guy -- he sounds like a bad guy.  Why can't we just take him out?"

Sometimes, you need someone who thinks in a very binary way -- someone who will take action instead of just dancing around and leaning towards a decision without taking one.  But not when it's arguably the most powerful man/woman in the world.  

[Cinemark]

It's telling that the current narrative coming from the White House has gone from "We killed a terrorist and Americans are safer" to "Its Obama's fault".

[Almost Anyone But Biden Or Trump (ABBoT but not Greg Abbott)]

https://twitter.com/farnazfassihi/status/1213836953759756292

Would Soleimani himself have been happy to die for this? Apparently so. From his perspective, if the dead could speak, he would likely say that Trump did him a favor. Although he presumably would have been sad that he could no longer assist in achieving various other Iranian strategic aims, he would have been aware that he had plenty of successors to do that.

[The Free North]

Bring the troops home, Donald.

[Badger]

Fwiw here's my take, which I know you've all been breathlessly awaiting.

It is perfectly acceptable to drone strike/ assassinate an individual, whether you label them a general, terrorist, whatever, who is about to cause imminent harm to numbers of American troops and / or civilians. The deceased SOB falls in the category of an enemy combatant.

However, the question is whether or not it was a properly calculated and measured risk that isn't going to bite America in the ass and cause us more blood in the long run. I don't know the answer to that question yet. However, several aspects of the Trump Administration in general, based entirely on empirical evidence and historical fact, give me serious serious reservations.

One, Trump and his administration are loaded with War Hawks, including Trump himself, who have wanted any excuse fathomable to cause a serious military conflict, if not outright war, with Iran from day one. Trump himself has proven himself Beyond any shadow of a doubt to be a narcissistic sociopath, and his tweets indicate he would love nothing more than to feel himself in and the role of some modern day Cesar / Truman / Reagan, and doesn't care which working class families can't use bone spurs as a medical excuse for his own vainglory.

2,, Trump and his administration have proven themselves, even by the standards of politicians, and even politicians trying to do doublespeak to justify belligerent foreign policy, to be complete and absolute Liars. Literally nothing Trump says even by those standards, on any subject whatsoever, can be deemed true. If he says it's sunny out, one needs to check the window to make sure. And it'll probably be raining. If we learned anything from the whole Saddam having an arsenal of weapons of mass destructions debacle leading us into the Iraq War, then we should readily believe that Trump is Administration will make that look like a little white lie in order to achieve their goals in paragraph one above. Ergo, again based on empirical history and practice, absolutely nothing whatsoever uttered by Trump or his administration can be deemed even half-truth for until verified by an independent source. And I repeat, absolutely nothing. Anyone who disputes his complete absence of veracity has been living in a cave 4 for 5 years now, or is a complete cultist whom need not be interacted with.

Three. In terms of trying to measure the pros and cons of this decision, on any subject in any situation, the Trump Administration cannot be trusted to get anything right. They have proven themselves not just incompetent, but a raging dumpster fire on every single aspect of anything they try, be it domestic policy, foreign policy, simple day to Day management of the White House and government Administration, or just simple matters of presidential judgment like not getting into a Twitter flame War with sixteen-year-olds or gold star parents who oppose your politics. Simply put, it is an empirical fact that Trump and his family / cronies cannot be entrusted to plan picnic without s******* the bed. Ergo, it stands to reason that if the Trump Administration made the correct call here, it is not only mere happenstance, but according to their MO, statistically unlikely at best.

tl;dr version: I'm not willing to 100% say this was the wrong move yet, but I'm certainly not willing to say it was the right move until it is verified or at least indicated by an independent trustworthy source. I. E. Not according to whatever the mango Mussolini and his incompetent crime organization claim.

To your third point, Badger: what troubles me as to whether or not Trump made the correct call here is the response.  The administration is all over the place.  

-- "They started it.  We ended it.  There will be hell to pay if they respond."

-- "Maybe they will respond.  We're not worried though.  Iraqis and Iranians alike are actually rejoicing at Soleimani's demise."  

-- "They may not realize it now, but we just saved them.  They WILL thank us later.  This was as much a humanitarian effort as anything."  

-- "Our mission was to get the troops out of the Middle East.  It's up to the Iranians and the Iraqis to take the reins."  

And so on and so forth.  

Look, I'm in the same boat where I'm not certain if this was the correct move or not.  But doing my absolute best to put aside my personal dislike for Trump and his administration, I'm just having a hard time trusting the President right now.  And as an American, that disturbs me more than anything -- having a hard time trusting the Commander-in-Chief in the midst of a delicate and uncertain situation involving another volatile (and untrustworthy) party.  

Exactly. My reservations here are not over personal or even General political opposition to Trump, though he and his administration's General hawkishness and willingness to engage in a military conflict with Iran make the initially quite skeptical. The bigger problem is that Trump and his Administration have not just repeatedly, but consistently proven themselves to be literally unprecedentedly dishonest and incompetent.

Relying that this was in fact the correct choice  requires assuming that there will in fact be some factual justification Beyond whatever inevitable lies come out of their mouths, and further that it being the long-term best decision was a broken clock moment for this Administration. I'm not optimistic about either.

[Badger]

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

There is no "HIS" philosophy. Donald Trump doesn't know or care enough about anything to have a consistent worldview. Everything he does is just following whatever the last person who had his ear suggested.

I'm pretty convinced that most of Donald Trump's questions in the Oval Office to his advisors and cabinet start with "why can't we just...?"

"Why can't we just build a wall? Illegal immigration is a problem.  A wall will keep people out."  

"Why can't we just cut taxes? People hate paying taxes!"

"This Soleimani guy -- he sounds like a bad guy.  Why can't we just take him out?"

Sometimes, you need someone who thinks in a very binary way -- someone who will take action instead of just dancing around and leaning towards a decision without taking one.  But not when it's arguably the most powerful man/woman in the world.  

Since we're discussing foreign policy, one can't forget his repeated serious questions 2 Military and diplomatic advisors only a couple years ago of why we just can't use our nukes since we have so many of them.

The man is a walking Menace.

[Omega21]

Meanwhile you're the only 1st World Country where not letting the uninsured die is considered unrealistic.

[Dr. Arch]

Meanwhile you're the only 1st World Country where not letting the uninsured die is considered unrealistic.

Eisenhower's Republican party died with him.

M4A is one of my top issues, and I hope that it's legislated sometime soon.

The healthcare situation is a blight on this country, and I 100% agree with you on this.

[jaichind]

https://twitter.com/farnazfassihi/status/1213832350045523968

Best thing to happen for Iraq in a long time.

Hope the people will soon regain their independence and sovereignty.

I agree.  Hopefully this leads to USA pulling troops out of Iraq

[Badger]

All in all, I support the action.  Solemani wasn't in Iran when he was killed; he was in a foreign country where we had an embassy, where he was acting illegally according to Iraqi law and International Law.  I have no problem with killing people who launch attacks on civilians.  I also have no problem with a policy that results in the Solemanis of the World have real fear of being taken out.  On a personal, I'm happy that Solemani is dead, and not some anonymous grunt who was just a dupe or a mercenary.

Trump has said he is not for "Regime Change" and has re-emphasized that.  Of course, after he says this, the de-frocked John Bolton takes to Twitter, when he should have just shut up.  Bolton was the most cringeworthy appointment Trump made, and the one I was happy to see leave.  But Bolton is a symptom of what I find in Trump's Administration that needs to be corrected.

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

Can't say I disagree with much of this. This hits nail on head.

Nor can I, with the one caveat that it implies Trump HAS anything approaching an actual foreign policy.

At best, it is ad hoc decisions based on whomever last had Trump's ear and explain how following their agenda would make Trump look better. At worst, despite his having occasionally talked on the campaign Trail about the need to bring troops home not engage in Endless Wars, etcetera, Trump has continuously demonstrated that he will gladly engage in unrestrained military action for any perceived personal slight, and Iran's perceived lack of personal affection for Trump makes them number one on that list.

In short, at best Trump's foriegn policy is like daily spinning a roulette wheel, and at worst that of a modern day Caligula desperate for a triumphal procession to satisfy his vainglory.

Yes, I compared him to Caligula. And if one looks at the historical record of "Little Boots", it is all too apt a comparison.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

All in all, I support the action.  Solemani wasn't in Iran when he was killed; he was in a foreign country where we had an embassy, where he was acting illegally according to Iraqi law and International Law.  I have no problem with killing people who launch attacks on civilians.  I also have no problem with a policy that results in the Solemanis of the World have real fear of being taken out.  On a personal, I'm happy that Solemani is dead, and not some anonymous grunt who was just a dupe or a mercenary.

Trump has said he is not for "Regime Change" and has re-emphasized that.  Of course, after he says this, the de-frocked John Bolton takes to Twitter, when he should have just shut up.  Bolton was the most cringeworthy appointment Trump made, and the one I was happy to see leave.  But Bolton is a symptom of what I find in Trump's Administration that needs to be corrected.

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

Can't say I disagree with much of this. This hits nail on head.

Nor can I, with the one caveat that it implies Trump HAS anything approaching an actual foreign policy.

At best, it is ad hoc decisions based on whomever last had Trump's ear and explain how following their agenda would make Trump look better. At worst, despite his having occasionally talked on the campaign Trail about the need to bring troops home not engage in Endless Wars, etcetera, Trump has continuously demonstrated that he will gladly engage in unrestrained military action for any perceived personal slight, and Iran's perceived lack of personal affection for Trump makes them number one on that list.

In short, at best Trump's foriegn policy is like daily spinning a roulette wheel, and at worst that of a modern day Caligula desperate for a triumphal procession to satisfy his vainglory.

Yes, I compared him to Caligula. And if one looks at the historical record of "Little Boots", it is all too apt a comparison.

I do have to take issue with the use of Caligula as an analogy to Trump because that image we all have of him was crafted by classist elites who he humiliatated and defeated beyond the limits of what they thought possible at the time.
Your overall point is inarguably true though.

[Badger]

All in all, I support the action.  Solemani wasn't in Iran when he was killed; he was in a foreign country where we had an embassy, where he was acting illegally according to Iraqi law and International Law.  I have no problem with killing people who launch attacks on civilians.  I also have no problem with a policy that results in the Solemanis of the World have real fear of being taken out.  On a personal, I'm happy that Solemani is dead, and not some anonymous grunt who was just a dupe or a mercenary.

Trump has said he is not for "Regime Change" and has re-emphasized that.  Of course, after he says this, the de-frocked John Bolton takes to Twitter, when he should have just shut up.  Bolton was the most cringeworthy appointment Trump made, and the one I was happy to see leave.  But Bolton is a symptom of what I find in Trump's Administration that needs to be corrected.

The Foreign Policy realm of the Trump Administration has been infiltrated by neocons, in part because they professed loyalty to Trump.  They have sought to flavor Trump's policy with Neocon Spice, and they've been somewhat successful.  Somewhat.  Trump needs to systematically replace the neocons in his Foreign Policy apparatus with people that adhere to HIS philosophy and not let anymore Bolton's creep back in.

Can't say I disagree with much of this. This hits nail on head.

Nor can I, with the one caveat that it implies Trump HAS anything approaching an actual foreign policy.

At best, it is ad hoc decisions based on whomever last had Trump's ear and explain how following their agenda would make Trump look better. At worst, despite his having occasionally talked on the campaign Trail about the need to bring troops home not engage in Endless Wars, etcetera, Trump has continuously demonstrated that he will gladly engage in unrestrained military action for any perceived personal slight, and Iran's perceived lack of personal affection for Trump makes them number one on that list.

In short, at best Trump's foriegn policy is like daily spinning a roulette wheel, and at worst that of a modern day Caligula desperate for a triumphal procession to satisfy his vainglory.

Yes, I compared him to Caligula. And if one looks at the historical record of "Little Boots", it is all too apt a comparison.

I do have to take issue with the use of Caligula as an analogy to Trump because that image we all have of him was crafted by classist elites who he humiliatated and defeated beyond the limits of what they thought possible at the time.
Your overall point is inarguably true though.

You know, you're right and I almost added a caveat to that effect in my post. There is some Modern historical analysis that says , while not a good Emperor, Caligula may have been far better than the monster he was posthumously depicted as by those contemporary historians who were in the camp of his political enemies.

My God! Has it really come to the point that we may have a president of the United States who arguably is WORSE then Caligula?!?