 |
| Site of Iran's missile attack in Ain al-Asad air base in Anbar province, Iraq January 13; Source:REUTERS/JOHN DAVISON
Nearly 8 hours before Iran's missile attack on US bases in Iran, on January 7, American troops were ordered to go on lockdown. The first missile landed at about 1:30 a.m. on January 8, where by midnight not a single person remained out in the open at the airbase, resulting in having no one injured or killed. After the landing of the missiles, U.S. officials quoted that there was no doubt in Iran having the full intention of killing U.S. personnel, and that the U.S. intelligence had made an advance notice that stopped the casualty count from the attack. The confusion over Iran's actions towards the U.S. continues the difficulty of judging what their true intentions are.
Discussion Questions
1. What are Iran's intentions through its missile attack towards the U.S.?
2. Is it justified for Iran to attack the U.S. air base in Iraq?
3. Should the U.S. respond with another attack towards Iran, and if so is this justified?
Sources
|
Monday, January 13, 2020
Forwarning saves US and Iraqi lives from Iran's missile attack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think Iran wants the U.S out of the Middle East completely and this was one of their ways to do it. This attack seems like a warning especially looking at the fact that there were no casualties. I believe that this attack was justified if you look at it through Iran's eyes. Their general was just killed and this attack was again like a warning. President Trump had a press conference the day after the attack saying that more economic sanctions will be placed on Iran and their still has not been a counter-attack I believe. I believe both sides want deescalation of the current conflict, but the thing is that President Trump previously tweeted that if the Iranians cross this certain line and counter-attack because of the assassination of their general, then the U.S has missiles locked onto 52 sites in Iran, some of cultural significance. The question of the justification of an attack would be up to debate. In my opinion, an attack would be justified but not the best option. The Iranians did cross a line by attacking these two air bases in Iraq, but who knows what the next steps forward are for these two countries
ReplyDeleteYou commented that the attack seemed like a warning especially because there were no casualties, but if the U.S. intelligence had not found out about the possible attack and the U.S. air base were to not go on lock down there would have been a result of casualties. From the events we can see that Iran had expected to kill U.S. personnel if it weren't for the U.S. intelligence finding out. But I agree with you that the attack was justified to Iran's eyes because they wanted to get revenge for having the U.S. kill one of their generals and an attack towards Iran may not be fully justified but they ignored Trump's declaration to them and in a way Iran can be blamed.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that the US could respond with an attack, but considering this was retaliation for a US attack, escalating the conflict would make the US the aggressor. I think it's best to remain neutral at this stage and if Iran takes further military action, we should respond accordingly with measured retaliation. We don't want to have World War 3 here.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue here is an issue that goes back decades. America has had lots of influence in the Middle East since the end of WW2. Obviously not everyone in the area wants the US to be there, so right now I think it is most important to start a conversation between all the countries about how to compromise.
ReplyDeleteI believe that due to Irans actions and their aggression towards the U.S and American military, the U.S should do something. I don't believe that we should't go to war based of the fact that no one would support a war like that. However, I do believe we should use our power as the U.S to enact an embargo or some other way of punishment. Overall I hope that the situation will deescalate and kids 30 years from now will learn about this in history class as a very small conflict.
ReplyDeleteResponding with an attack is a possible option for the US, but would render the US the aggressor in the situation. It is best to resolve this situation diplomatically, but if that does not work then it seems resolving the situation violently is our only option. Considering the recent advances in military technology such as the destructive capabilities of bombs and missile range and accuracy, war should be avoided at all costs. Regardless, it's best to remain neutral, but if Iran attacks the US violently, then we must respond with a controlled attack. .
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S. should take action in a diplomatic way with Iran, because both sides believe they are justified in this attack. War wouldn't be supported on either side, and the conflict between the Middle East and the U.S. has been going on for a long time, so the most important thing to do at the moment is begin a diplomatic peace agreement between the two countries, to prevent war, for the fact that none of the citizens support a war.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the U.S. should try to solve this diplomatically as well. I don't believe that Iran's attack on the U.S. was justified though as they could have tried to solve this diplomatically as well. We have been in conflict with Iran for a long time, and I think the smart thing for both countries to do is to stop attacking each other. Every time that an attack is made, there is more chance for a deadly war that no one wants. A war would be devastating to both sides and would simply increase tensions in the future no matter the outcome. Yes, we are lucky that our troops were warned to go on lockdown. But we should take this luck and use it as a spark of inspiration for peace rather than war because in war, the chances of being lucky like this again are very slim. We've come close to the verge of war with Iraq before such as in late June of 2019 when Iran shot down a U.S. navy drone and President Trump almost called for a military response. If we solve this diplomatically and refrain from attacking unless attacked, there is a better chance of this conflict dissolving quickly and with less casualties.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-iran-near-brink-of-a-war-that-would-likely-devastate-both-sides-2019-5
I think that Irans intentions for their attack against the United States military bases in Iraq was to retaliate against the assassination of military leader Qassem Soleimani, and to protest U.S. influence in the Middle East. Due to the U.S. having been responsible for the assassination of Soleimani, I believe that Iran had some justification in their actions, and wanted to send a message opposing any U.S. presence or influence in their country. However, because Iran targeted U.S. military bases in Iraq, I think that their actions were not just, and that they should not have invaded another country and caused destruction and disturbances. Now, the U.S. is faced with the choice of retaliating against the recent Iranian attacks, or refraining from further heightening the situation. I strongly think that the U.S. should not conduct another operation against Iran, and instead try to find intermediate measures in order to try and achieve peace instead of potentially launching the tensions forward into a war.
ReplyDeleteI think that technically, it would be justified for the US to retaliate with an attack since Iran did attack first, so it could be considered the response to a conflict rather than the initiation of a conflict. Then again, it is very easy to simply point fingers at the opponent when deciding who was responsible for starting the problem, as tensions between the US and the Middle East have been high for quite a while now. Although retaliation may be considered justified, I do not think that this would be the best response: with the types of weapons we have in our possession, war would be extremely damaging. As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind;" I think the US and Iran should focus on coming to some sort of nonviolent compromise and avoid any kind of war at all costs.
ReplyDeleteI think that the missiles were fired because the Iranian government wanted to demonstrate that they are standing up to the US. The Iranians knew that if they did enough damage and started a war, that they would lose, so it was more like a warning. They also wanted to show the world the accuracy of their missiles.
ReplyDeleteIran’s intentions are likely not to create a full-scale war, but rather to egg the United States for killing their popular general; Iran’s military is too weak compared to the United States. They will be obliterated if it is drawn out into an actual conflict, but they also want to warn the United States that they are not welcome in Iran’s affairs. From Iran’s perspective, it would be justified for them to attack the U.S. air base in Iraq as a form of revenge; the U.S. shouldn’t respond with an attack, however, because they would likely incite more conflict. Harsher economic sanctions will be a better course of action because it will further limit Iraq’s economy, riling up Iraq’s own citizens against the government, while also forcing the government to agree to diplomatic solutions that are in the U.S.’s favor.
ReplyDelete