‘Did Trump really make America safer by killing top Iranian general?’ | SCMP, LETTERS

LETTER TO SCMP:
Is professor Ben-Meir privy to inside information proving that Trump is "without a strategy" after the killing of the terrorist Qaseem Soleimani? (US is not safer after Trump's missile strike, 19 January)

If so perhaps he could share it with us. 

If not, then he has access to the same public information as I do.

And on that basis I conclude — contra Ben-Meir — that the United States and the region are indeed safer by marking a clear red line, after incessant provocations instigated by Soleimani and his proxies. Ben-Meir notes some of these himself: "…killing of hundreds of American soldiers …acting against American allies."  One could add: attacks on merchant shipping, attacks on Saudi oil wells, funding Houthi rebels, funding Assad's murderous regime, killing contractors, attacking the US Embassy …the list goes on. 

In short, I buy the idea that the killing of the senior terrorist in the region establishes a deterrent. 

Oddly, even Ben-Meir accepts that Soleimani "…deserved to meet his bitter fate." What he objects to, it seems, is not that he met his fate, but that it was at the hands of Orange Man Bad.

Soleimani's day job was terrorism. It's what he did.  As sure as night follows day he would have organised more terrorist acts. ("Imminence" is a side issue).

As it is, the muted and carefully managed Iranian response attack on US bases in Iraq suggests deterrence is already working. 

Moreover, as a self described peace activist, Ben-Meir ought to tune in to voices inside Iran — not just the choreographed hate-America rallies. There is widespread support in Iran for the killing of Soleimani and support for America(*). More, indeed, than on the Trump-despising American Left, epitomised by the likes of Ben-Meir.

Pf, etc…

(*) See, for example, Iranian students carefully walking around the American and Israeli flags painted on the grounds of the University of Tehran, so as not to step on them.