So much for de-escalation

8 January 2020

11:56 AM

8 January 2020

11:56 AM

‘We are not looking to start a war with Iran,’ said defense secretary Mark Esper today. ‘We are looking to finish one.’ Iran just replied by firing off at least a dozen missiles at American targets in Iraq in an effort supposedly dubbed Operation Martyr Soleimani. It doesn’t mean war yet — but all the Trump administration’s talk about ‘de-escalating’ the situation sounds like hot air.

As yet, the details of Iran’s retaliation are unclear — we don’t know if the strikes were aimed at American troops or infrastructure. Is it a face-saving measure? A decoy? Have the fortified American defenses at these bases worked? We can only wait and see.

For now the talking points for Americans are — how will Trump respond? More pressingly, does he have any idea what he is doing? Did he fully appreciate the possible consequences of his dramatic decision to take out Qasem Soleimani outside Baghdad’s airport?


‘Weakness invites the wolves,’ said Republican senator John Kennedy on Fox News, justifying the Trump administration’s more confrontational approach to Tehran. Well, it seems strength invites the wolves too.

The Trump administration has given confused signals so far. Last year it showed restraint, as Trump turned the planes around on a strike against Iran following the attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities. This year, three days in, it killed Qasem Soleimani.

Team Trump has displayed a nervousness in recent days which suggests it doesn’t know what it is doing.

Pompeo is sticking to the awkward administration line: Soleimani represented an ‘imminent threat’ to American lives, which means the US administration was legally justified and morally compelled to take him out. Everyone knows that’s flam: we’ve been told for years that Soleimani has been killing US troops. Why now?

See the full story of So much for de-escalation on Spectator USA.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Show comments