An Argument Against Killing Qasem Soleimani

We are committed to providing our clients with exceptional solutions while offering web design and development services, graphic design services, organic SEO services, social media services, digital marketing services, server management services and Graphic Design Company in USA.

I respectfully disagree with Major Deep’s analysis.  

Despite general disenchantment with its government, Soleimani was the one charming poster boy that the Islamic Republic could hold up to its citizens. He was that rare individual who could support the killing of his own countrymen (1,500 killed last month), and yet,  remain popular with them. There is no other Iranian official who comes close to such reverence. His loss may unite Iranians in the short term, however, his absence will certainly undermine the regime in the longer run. 
 

Following the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran has faced no natural enemies. Both the enemies it has manufactured over the past 3 decades, and the proxies required to defend it from those supposed enemies, have drained it of both its enormous financial capital and its equally remarkable human capital. This stark realization is growing across the entire Iranian population. Soleimani’s departure may hasten the end of this regime for the regime has lost the one person who’s image of fatherly protection and heroic nationalism could rationalize its prolongation. 

This particular argument against targeting the Quds Force Commander seems reliant on a simple but entirely errant notion that organic regime change from within Iran is the optimal way to deal with the rouge nation.

Popular support would only grow, as long as Iran is able to attack the "great Satan" and regional allies by capturing both Naval vessels and non-combatant ships, shooting down American surveillance craft, destroying Saudi oil facilities, and extracting tribute from the last administration.

Then on top of that, Shia militias assault and occupy the American Embassy in Baghdad at Soleimani's direction, and at a minimum he has the audacity to fly into Baghdad Airport to spike the football?

With all due respect Sir, everything up and too that point that Soleimani and the Iranian Regime was able to accomplish only endeared the leadership to the Iranian People in their mutual struggle against the "evil empire".  

Killing Soleimani may have Iranian leadership questioning their position, and serves to boost morale here at home as we have been consistently embarrassed in this war with Iran since 1979.

And yes, a Reservist Rifleman can recognize a war even when the experts "can't" or are unwilling to.

In case you haven’t heard, Iran is not a democracy – just ask the many citizens in Iran’s jails. Soleimani’s “enjoy(ing) the support of 8 out of 10 Iranians” had nothing to do with his position as the head “terrorist,” I’m sure.

I’m sorry, but if I were of Eisenhower’s family, I’d be severely offended to see Ike being compared to one of the leading terrorists in the world. Soleimani had no education or military training and Ike never would have signed a letter threatening the use of the military to remove a sitting president. Presuming that the citizens of Iran actually mourn Soleimani (and not being forced into these public displays) is a far stretch, just as thinking the Viet Cong were actually welcomed by the South Vietnamese in 1971.

The JPOA was a sham, Iran continued its drive towards nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that it has pursued for decades. The previous administration’s billion-dollar payoffs were turned into supporting terrorism, not in helping their own people (and their citizens know it).

To get even more fundamental, Soleimani being responsible for the death of 600 American service personnel is more than enough to permanently remove him – another American family won’t have to be told their loved one isn’t coming home. Is there really any other country that would have stood for this so long and, more importantly, why did we?