Uncertainty Ruled Until…

As this message prepares to go we await word from President Trump on what and if any action will taken on last nights missile attacks. My gut is the President will back off and give Iran an out. He wants peace and wouldn’t a non action now make all those who called his action against Soleimani WWlll look bad. Wouldn’t a quieter Iran with another terrorist gone be good for the world. Let’s see what he plans.

Yesterday, you can feel the uncertainty all day as Iran made threats and the President promised action back. The media is covering it all with bated breath and the world is awaiting the next act. It’s like we were frozen to see what would happen and when. The stock market lingered in limbo and finally as evening arose we heard of Iran’s move.

The challenge I have given here before was, what would you do if you were Iran?
You can throw all the threats you want, but you know now that if you harm innocent Americans this President will act.
You know you shot drones out of the sky, attacked ships, sent some rockets into Saudi Arabia oil fields and the U.S.President did nothing. He said he “wanted peace,” but did warn “don’t hurt an American.”
You began to think he was like past Presidents and didn’t want a fight. You thought maybe he couldn’t do anything now since he was promising to withdraw and this was an election year.
You thought maybe you could take actions that would drive him out quicker.
You attacked bases ten times killing others, but not Americans. Nothing happened back.
So you went ahead and attacked his embassy. Maybe remind the Americans about the 1979 embassy attack and hasten their departure.
Finally, you attacked an eleventh base, but this time you killed Americans. You were confident now you had America on the run.

You were wrong. He attacked with vengeance and killed your most valuable soldier and leader. He meant it about killing his citizens.

Now your dilemma was what to do to show your people and the world you will not cower? What do you do?
It was clear to you that you better not attack innocent Americans. What does that leave? That act guaranteed reaction, you knew that now.
You can attack military bases and present it as a similar act to killing Soleimani. The world might buy that.
You can attack a ship on the high seas in the area and call it a military response to a provocation. The danger is killing too many sailors.
They can attack Trump family holdings. Think of their hotels.

That last must have been an interesting option for them. They know half of America are not fans of the President and think (mistakenly) he is profiting big time from being in office. If they can attack his holdings they may have thought that’s their best option. After all, who will support the President starting a war over an attack on his hotel?
But, how do you do that without harming civilians and you need to avoid that here. The most inviting option, but not feasible.

Pat Buchanan outlined it clearly today. He wrote:
“Trump has a red line. It is not shooting at American drones but shooting at American soldiers, the drawing of American blood.
The message the rulers of Iran should have received?
If they retaliate for Soleimani by killing American soldiers, diplomats or civilians, using either Iranian troops or proxy militias, Trump will retaliate against Iran itself”.

That left the military option as the best and really only one.

As you listen to the media hype Iran and scare the American people, remember this. If you were them (Iran), your options were and are limited. You have to and better be careful. They know it, and they are not the behemoth the media is making them out to be.

They knew it as Politico reported this:
“But in private, even hardliners have said Tehran must strike back but avoid a full-blown conflict. ‘We cannot ignore this aggression easily and have to prevent the US from repeating its rogue behaviour,’ said Hamid-Reza Taraghi, a politician close to Iran’s hardline forces. ‘But our strategy is retaliation in such a way that we do not go to a war.’ …”

And finally on this issue, here’s what former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley said this week:
“The Democratic leadership and 2020 presidential candidates are the only ones mourning the death of Iranian Gen. Soleimani. I’ll tell you this: You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran. You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members, you’re not hearing China, you’re not hearing Russia. The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and our Democrat presidential candidates.”
I might add that some in the MSM are too, but she hit it right.

The Political corner

The next Democratic debate is next week (Jan. 14). Only five candidates have earned spots on the stage. They are:
Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Three others have an outside shot to get there, but are not likely. They are: Tom Steyer, Andrew Yang and Cory Booker. They need a big polling surge before Friday’s deadline to qualify. Which is why you have been seeing so many Steyer ads recently.

One thing to watch as the primaries begin to unfold. This could happen because of the rule changes and fractured field. It could be the first time in many of our lifetimes that there is no clear cut candidate when the convention convenes. The rules allow for proportional delegates, and there are no “Super Delegates” in round one.
Wouldn’t that be interesting?

John Bolton jolted Washington saying if subpoenaed he would testify. You know what it really means? Likely nothing. Why?
Even if McConnell loses control and enough Republicans vote with the Democrats to have witnesses, don’t you think the President will first try to block Bolton by asserting executive privilege? Especially if he thinks the testimony might hurt him?
So then we go to court and that could last a long time — much longer than the Senate trial.
The optics would be bad, but I doubt we hear from Bolton.

other news

There was a report out of Cincinnati last night that CNN agreed Tuesday to settle a $275 million lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann over the network’s coverage of his viral encounter with an elderly Native American activist. You remember how this was falsely reported and the young Sandmann was presented as a racist Trump supporter, when the encounter was created the opposite way.
According to The Washington Times, a CNN Spokesperson confirmed a settlement had been reached, but offered no details.
Stay tuned to this and remember Sandmann has suites against a number of others.

Have a great day.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *