re: #21 ckkatz

The Iranian statement is kind of interesting.

Assuming that what they say is true. (Something that is not neccesarily the case.)

They are implying that they have achieved their strategic goal of bum-rushing us out of Iraq.

I suspect that they did a cost-benefit analysis and concluded that going further than this is probably not worth the cost of a war.

I also suspect that their proxies are going to be encouraging us to keep on ‘moving along’.

And most of their messaging seems to have been more directed at the Iraqis than at us.

Since we have been propping up a lot of the Iraqi independents, our leaving is going to encourage those folks to either make a deal with the Iranians and their proxies or leave. That will likely screw Iraq over for another generation.

And of course, I suspect that the IRGC are currently concocting some clandestine actions aimed at us.

It is kind of an unexpected nuance - “We’re going to blow up this one thing and then stop, and if you don’t respond, we won’t go further.” Is there precedent for something like this? Besides that one scene in “By Dawn’s Early Light” where the Soviet leader communicates an intention to exchange equivalent casualties and call it a war?

Thinking over this situation on the weekend, I followed this logic:

1. The Iranians HAVE to respond, or they look weak.
2. They can’t hit back too hard, because anything they do can and will be used to start something they know they can’t win.
3. They have to hit back in an obvious, official way (not something “sneaky” like a terrorist bombing).
4. Any counter-strike should be flavored to marginalize Trump and make him look bad if possible.
5. If possible, a counter-strike should further larger goals - Make Iran look tough, screw up U.S. planning, gain territory, et cetera.

My thought was, if I was them, I’d lay low for a few days and then attack the nearest Trump property mid-week sometime. You KNOW that just like any authoritarian government worth their military budget, they made attack plans against every Trump property they could look up in January 2017, as an exercise, if for no other reason. (“What if we have to fuck with this guy?”).