Trump's role is insignificant, so as the American role in general.
The revolution is internal by the masses of people sick and tired of them and their tyranny after this many decades.
It may be insignificant to those who want a revolution in Iran. However, Trump's role is clearly significant to the Iranian regime. Carter's administration was brought down by Carter's failure to defend the US embassy in Tehran (among other things). Obama was able to get re-elected in spite of Benghazi, but it was a "Lord Jim" moment if you're a Joseph Conrad fan. The US media covered for Obama and he was re-elected, but in the eyes of men like Putin, Obama was perceived as a cream puff. Obama confirmed that by failing to back up his red line in the sand not even a year later. I was amazed that US adversaries didn't take more advantage at the time, but eventually Putin did by annexing Crimea.
Iran has been baiting Trump into an attack. It seems motivated by a need to galvanize public opinion in Iran against an external enemy. Trump has not taken the bait. The current response by Trump in killing Soleimani--especially since the Department of Defense indicated that the operation was done at the direction of Trump himself--isn't likely to galvanize public opinion in Iran against the US, it does actual damage to the Quds leadership and organization, and has likely shaken Iranian leadership to a significant degree. We shall see how they respond.
benpenguin wrote:I am actually very surprised with this news, afterall Trump defeated Hillary, fired John Bolton and filled the Whitehouse chock full of China Hawks. As far as retaliatory measures go he can just drone some more Shitte Milita or maybe down an Iranian Jet. Is this a concession towards Iran hawks to whip votes against impeachment?
The timing is fortuitous for Trump politically, because Pelosi has not transferred any articles of impeachment--making impeachment even more impotent as a political issue than it already is. Substantively, Iran rallied protesters to attack the US embassy in Baghdad and then bragged that Trump could do nothing about it. I'm sure Iranian leadership is quite shocked at the measured, mild, and simultaneously devastating response from Trump. There was no bombing of cities, indiscriminate killing, etc. It was a precise hit at a well-placed and well-deserved target.
Politics_Observer wrote:He has a duty to protect US citizens and the strike certainly puts the Iranians on notice not to attack our citizens.
I was in the 6th grade during the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. I remember us kids having a mock demonstration saying, "We want the Ayatollah, we want the Ayatollah" as though we'd know what to do if we got him. Our school teachers were amused. Yet, Carter's effort to rescue hostages after the fact was a disaster and he never bolstered embassy defenses and it was only 4 years after the fall of Saigon. In Benghazi, Clinton had refused additional security and Obama evidently concurred as they were trying to buy arms from Al Qaeda affiliates to get arms to "moderate" Syrian forces with a "zero footprint" of American weapons. Ansar Al Sharia was able to overrun the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 and kill the US ambassador. By contrast, Trump has shown that unlike Carter or Obama, he will respond with force. He was also very precise and measured in his attack. That's still a pretty soft touch, but effective.
-- Joe Biden on banning travel from China during the coronavirus outbreak